Full text of "The Old Testament among the Semitic religions"

See other formats

BS 1180 .B4 1910

Berry, George Ricker, 1865-

1945.
The Old Testament among the

Cbc Old Cestament

among

Cbc Semitic Religions

* JUN 23 1910

Cbe Old Cestament

ClK Semitic Religions

/BV

George Ricker Berry, Pb. D., D. D.

Professor of Semitic Canauages, €olaate University

%«i

ML SEWV^

PhiladtlDWa

Cbe Griffitb $ Rowland Press

Boston eiticago St. Couis

Co
tiM memory ot

e. c. B.

Published March, 1910

preface

Within recent years much has been written
concerning the relation of the Hebrews to the
surrounding nations, especially Babylonia and
Assyria. While many phases of this relation
have been discussed with great fulness, the most
fundamental question has received a relatively
inadequate consideration. This general question
is, What features of the religious teachings, or
theology, of the Old Testament are to be con-
sidered common to the Hebrews and some other
nation or nations, and what features are distinct-
ive. Various elements in this question have been
discussed, but it has been approached usually from
the other side, with the consideration, e, g., of the
features which Babylonia has contributed to the
Old Testament. It is this general question which
the present writer proposes for consideration.

The nations to be embraced in this discussion
evidently should include all the Semitic nations,

O PREFACE

SO far as material is available ; for the association
of the Hebrews was largely with Semitic nations.
Further, it is a question not alone of national en-
vironment but of national inheritance. Some ref-
erence will also be made to the religion of Egypt.
It is held by some that the Egyptians were a Sem-
itic people. The present writer does not accept
this view, but recognizes that the Egyptians were
frequently subject to Semitic influences — religious
as well as other — from an early period. The
Egyptian sojourn of the Hebrews, however, and
the intercourse between the two nations during
the subsequent history, indicate that there was op-
portunity for influence by one nation upon the
other. Nevertheless, the general study which the
writer has given to the matter has convinced him
that any such influence was comparatively slight.
Hence, it does not seem important to make any
extended comparison with the Egyptian religion,
but preferable to limit such comparison to a few
points of special importance. No reference is
made to possible influence upon the Old Testa-
ment teaching by the Persian religion, the religion
of Zarathushtra. If there was such influence, as

PREFACE 7

seems probable, it included only a few points and
embraced simply details, so that it may here be
disregarded. Practically, then, the comparison is
between the Old Testament and the other Semitic
religions.

So far as a common-Semitic element appears
from this study, or even an element common to the
Hebrews and one or more of the other Sem-
itic nations, it may, aside from the possibility of
independent development, be explanied in two
principal ways. One is by influence of one nation
upon another, either by definite borrowing or in
a less specific way; the other is by inheritance
from common ancestors. Some reference will in-
evitably be made to these possibilities in the
course of the discussion, but the general matter
will be considered more directly at its conclusion.

It is recognized, of course, that any results
reached in this study must be provisional and held
with all due reserve. That is a necessary result
from the fragmentary nature of the material.
The new evidence that is constantly being made
available, especially in the Babylonian field, will
inevitably modify many features as they now ap-

8 PREFACE

pear. At the same time, the material now avail-
able is sufficient so that some, at least provisional,
results can be reached ; and it is not probable that
all results now attained can be radically changed
by increase of knowledge. An attempt to formu-
late conclusions cannot wait indefinitely for ad-
vancing knowledge, otherwise no conclusions
could be reached in any field.

Colgate University, January i, 1910. "• •*^' ■"•

Contcnte

PART I. GENERAL SURVEY

Chapter Page

I. Sketch of Semitic History 13

11. Semitic Religious Literature 19

IIL Preliminary Problems 28

PART IL DIVINE BEINGS

I. The Divine Nature 35

IL Metaphysical Attributes 57

III. Moral Attributes 70

PART IIL MAN

L Sin 87

IL Salvation through Sacrifice 99

III. Salvation through Incantation.. 142

IV. Salvation in Other Ways 146

lO CONTENTS

PART IV. THE FUTURE LIFE

Chapter Page

I. The General Conception 165

11. Rewards and Punishments 173

PART V. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

General Conclusions 185

A Selected Bibliography 203

PART I
GENERAL SURVEY

SKETCH OF SEMITIC HISTORY

CONCERNING the cradle of the Semites in
any absolute sense, it is impossible to speak
with assurance. That involves the general ques-
tion of the origin and distribution of man upon
earth, and goes back into prehistoric times. Con-
cerning the common distributing point of the
Semitic races, however, the home in which they
lived in early times as one people, there are some
definite indications. This common home is gen-
erally considered to have been Arabia. It is
hardly necessary to discuss the question here: it
is sufficient to say that in the judgment of the
writer the indications point clearly to this conclu-
sion.^ This early home is to be sought in Central
Arabia, the natural abiding-place of the nomads,
rather than in the extreme north or south. From
this early home came successive migratory move-
ments toward the north, resulting chiefly from

1 Concerning this and other points in the general sketch here
given, reference may be made to the article by the writer, " Semitic
Nations," in the " Encyclopedia Americana," Vol. XIV.

14 THE OLD TESTAMENT

over-population. The first of these was the Bab-
ylonian migration. Even the approximate date of
this cannot be determined with any approach to
certainty. Winckler assigns an interval of about
a thousand years between the principal migra-
tions, and makes the date of this one about 3400
B. C. But most authorities would consider it
many centuries earlier than this, and Winckler
allows the possibility of a considerable portion
of the movement being earlier.^ The next wave
of migration was the Canaanite. From this
came the people of Canaan, Phoenicia, and vicin-
ity, including the Hebrews as one of the later
representatives of the movement. The date of
this migration as given by Winckler, 2400-2100
B. C, may be accepted as approximately correct.
For the next movement, the Aramaic, Winckler
gives the dates from the fifteenth to the thirteenth
century. The culmination of this movement,
however, should perhaps be regarded as later than
these dates. The Aramaic tribes spread over
Mesopotamia and Syria, and to some extent also
over portions of Babylonia and Assyria. The last
wave was the Arabian, the movement of the Arabs
into Syria, in the seventh or eighth century B. C.

1 See " The History of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 2if.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 5

In all the cases cited the movement is not limited
to the dates above given, but was in force both
before and after, these dates indicating no more
than the crest of the wave. Along with these
came a southern migration, that of nomadic Arabs
into Southern Arabia, where they adopted a set-
tled habit of life. This apparently coincided ap-
proximately with that of the Arameans, or may
have been somewhat earlier.

From the Babylonian migration resulted the
Babylonian people and empire. The Babylonians
as a nation had a distinct history until their con-
quest by Cyrus, in 538 B. C, after which they
never again regained their separate national exist-
ence. To an unusual extent the Babylonians
absorbed foreign elements, for the most part non-
Semitic. In their early history they were prob-
ably mingled with the Sumerians, their predeces-
sors in the land. At later times conquest by the
Elamites and Cassites caused further admixture.
The Chaldeans who ruled in the new Babylonian
empire were doubtless a later wave of Semitic
migration, perhaps allied to the Arameans; and
many Arameans settled at various times in Bab-
ylonia and were to some extent absorbed. A
daughter State of Babylonia was Assyria, founded

l6 THE OLD TESTAMENT

by emigrants from Babylonia before 2200 B. C,
whose history continued to the fall of Nineveh in
606. Assyria had less of foreign admixture than
Babylonia, at least until the later years of the
empire.

The Canaanite nations, concerning which we
have definite information, are Phoenicia, Edom,
Moab, Ammon, Canaan, and the Hebrews. The
earliest of these to reach the final location were
the Phoenicians. The first definite references to
these are in the Egyptian records at about the
sixteenth century, but their coming was doubtless
much earlier than that. The other nations may
have come to the West at about the same time as
the Hebrews, or perhaps somewhat earlier than
that. The Old Testament accounts indicate at
least that these nations were closely connected
with the Hebrews. All these nations of Canaan
and vicinity continued to occupy positions of
considerable prominence down to the later pre-
Christian centuries.

The Arameans grouped themselves less defi-
nitely into nations than the people in these earlier
movements. They were for the most part tribes
rather than nations, and preserved their nomadic
habits for a considerable period of time, in most

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I7

cases for centuries. They occupied Mesopota-
mia and, later, Syria, together with portions of
Babylonia and Assyria. When they gave up their
nomadic form of life their government was
loosely organized. The city-State was a specially
prominent feature in their organization. These
city-States were found in Mesopotamia and Syria,
the strongest being in Syria. The political power
of the Arameans was broken by the Assyrian con-
quests, which culminated in the capture of Damas-
cus by Tiglathpileser III, about 732 B. C. They
continued, however, to be the prominent element
in the population of Syria and upper Mesopotamia
for centuries after this event.

The Arabs retained their tribal organization
and nomadic form of life, except the southern
branch, during all their ancient history, and even
largely to the present day.

Further mention should also be made of the
southern division of the Arabs. Southern Arabia
being fertile and adapted to agriculture, a settled
mode of life was naturally adopted. Four tribes
or nations developed here — the Minaeans, the Sa-
baeans, the people of Hadramaut, and the people
of Kataban. The Minaeans and Sabaeans estab-
lished kingdoms of considerable strength. The

1 8 THE OLD TESTAMENT

history of this region is known but very imper-
fectly as yet; the present tendency, however,
seems to be toward the view that the Minaean
kingdom extended from about 1250-600 B. C,
and the Sabsean from about 750-115 B. C/ The
kingdom of Aksum, in Abyssinia, the inhabitants
of which spoke the language commonly called
Ethiopic, was founded by emigrants from South-
ern Arabia, Sabaeans, about A. D. 350.

* These are the dates given by Barton, " A Sketch of Semitic
Origins," p. 122.

SEMITIC RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

THE religious literature of the Babylonians
and Assyrians is almost entirely of Bab-
ylonian origin; when the particular inscription
found was actually written in Assyria it is usually
a copy of a Babylonian original. A large part of
the religious documents are actually from the
library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal ; but
the originals were undoubtedly much older, al-
though in most cases it is impossible to fix the date
even approximately. Evidently they were of
various dates, being produced at different times
during the course of Babylonian history; but the
specifically religious documents are thought to be
relatively ancient. It is impossible to fix any or-
der in the production of the different kinds of
literature, unless by conjecture. Of some of the
documents several copies have been found with
considerable variations. The cities prominent as
religious centers were naturally the place of com-
position of most of these religious documents, but

20 THE OLD TESTAMENT

some have been changed to adapt them to the
worship of a different god from the one in whose
honor they were composed.

Of course reHgious elements are found in most
of the Babylonian and Assyrian literature; and
some information concerning religious matters is
derived from inscriptions which are not specific-
ally religious. In the narrow sense, however,
it is probably sufficient to divide the religious
literature into the following five classes: (i),
the magical texts and rituals; (2), the hymns,
prayers, and psalms; (3), omens; (4), cosmo-
logical texts; and (5), epics and myths. ^ The
magical texts consist of formulae and directions
for securing protection against the demons and
evil spirits who injure men. There are several
prominent series of these, one called prayers of
the lifting of the hand, and others named Maqlu,
Shiirpu, Lahartu, Utukki limnuti, etc. Maqlu and
Shiirpu both mean burning, as a symbolical act in
the incantations ; Lahartu is the name of a special
demon ; while Utukki limnuti means evil demons.
These magical texts were for use in the temple by
the priests, and thus in a broad sense belonged to

^ See especially Jastrow, " Die Religion Babyloniens iind Assy-
Hens," I. p. 269; and Weber, "Die Literatw' der Babylonier und
Assyrer," pp. 40-198.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 21

the temple ritual. Other texts, however, known
more specifically as ritual texts, are those which
give directions to the priests for the performance
of their specific ceremonies/ They give direc-
tions for three classes of priests, the baru, sooth-
sayer ; ashipu, exorcist ; and zammaru, singer.

The three varieties of literature classified above
as hymns, prayers, and psalms are not sharply
distinguished, being often found as parts of the
same composition, and running into each other.
In general, however, it is meant that a hymn is
a poem in praise of a deity ; a prayer is a petition
for help ; and a psalm is an expression of feeling,
especially of the various needs of which the
writer is conscious. Of the last, some are known
as penitential psalms, confession of sin being
prominent. Regularly these hymns, prayers, and
psalms are a part of the temple services, although
many of them may have been composed originally
as the expression of personal feeling.

The omen literature is very abundant. By
omen texts are meant any inscriptions which have
to do with the communication to men of the di-
vine will by means of any signs or indications.

1 The transliterations and translations of several of these texts
are found in Zimmern, " Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen
Religion,"

2Z THE OLD TESTAMENT

Of course these deal in general with the future,
the ascertaining of what is to take place. A
separate division might be recognized as oracles,
which are, however, closely connected with omens.
In the oracles specific questions were addressed
to a god, and the god responded, either through
the mouth of a priest, or more frequently a
priestess, or through some sign, particularly
through the condition of the animal sacrificed in
connection with the ceremony, the special seat of
this oracular response being the liver. The most
of these texts thus far found are addressed to the
sun-god Shamash, and belong to the time of
Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. The omen texts
derive omens from earthly and heavenly events.
Among these earthly events are any occurrences
that are at all unusual. Here belong the actions
of animals, unusual births among animals and
men, dreams, also soothsaying from sacrifices, and
from cups, etc. For the most part such omens
pertained to the king or to the general welfare.
But there were also omens from individual ex-
periences, which affected the individual alone.
The heavenly events were the changes of the
heavenly bodies, which were of course continually
giving omens. This is the psuedo-science of as-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 23

trology, which was fully developed and of great
importance.

The cosmology is not sharply distinguished
from the myths ; since there is much that is myth-
ical in what are called distinctly the cosmological
tablets, and cosmological elements are found in
some tablets that are more especially mythical.
As usually classified, however, by the cosmolog-
ical texts those tablets are meant that deal some-
what directly with the creation. The principal
one of these is what is usually called the " crea-
tion epic," named also eniima elish from its first
words. This consists of seven tablets, but is much
mutilated. The most of the text at hand was
found in the library of Ashurbanipal, but frag-
ments have come from other sources. This is
an account of the creation of all things — gods, the
earth, animals, and men. Marduk is the promi-
nent actor, and it is reasonably supposed that the
present form was due to a recension in the Interest
of Marduk of Babylon when Babylon became the
capital of Babylonia, about the time of Hammu-
rabi, 2250 B. C. In that case Marduk has taken
the place of some other god, or gods, as the prin-
cipal actor. It is not the creation itself that is the
chief purpose of the writing, but the account of

24 THE OLD TESTAMENT

the victory of Marduk over Tiamat, the goddess
of chaos. Of special interest is a small fragment,
K34454-Rm 396, which clearly is a part of the
fifth tablet, but which has the god Ashur in place
of Marduk, it thus being a later, specifically Assyr-
ian, recension. A distinct account is found in a
new-Babylonian tablet from Eridu, 82-5-22, 1048.
This forms the introduction to an incantation text,
and consists of about forty lines. It varies con-
siderably from the other account, especially in
the fact that the gods are already in existence.
The creator is Marduk, here apparently the ear-
lier Marduk of Eridu. Small fragments of other
accounts have also been found.

The epics and the myths, also, are not sharply
distinguished. Usually, however, the term epic
is applied especially to the epic of Gilgamesh.
The most of this comes from the library of Ashur-
banipal. It is the account of one Gilgamesh,
whose name is written with the determinative for
divine beings, but who in his acts is more human
than divine. The narrative is for the most part
mythical, with possibly a slight historical basis.
There are twelve tablets in this epic. A part of
it is the narrative of Utnapishtim giving an ac-
count of the deluge, usually called the deluge

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 2^

tablet, and having close resemblances to the Old
Testament account of the deluge. A fragment of
another recension of this epic with marked varia-
tions has also been found, written in the time of
Hammurabi; and there are various fragments of
a different deluge account, in which the hero is
not Utnapishtim but Atrahasis.

Among the myths more specifically so called are
the Etana myth, which is an account of a mythical
hero, Etana; the myth of Ira — Ira being the
plague god; the myth of the storm god Zu; the
myth of Adapa the Babylonian Adam; and sev-
eral others.

The Phoenician literature is preserved in their
own inscriptions and in some quotations in Greek
and Latin authors. The oldest inscriptions are
three very brief ones found on fragments of bowls
in Cyprus, and considered to belong to the eighth
century B. C.^ Most of the inscriptions are from
the fourth century and later. The religious ele-
ment is prominent in these inscriptions. Of spe-
cial importance, religiously, is the Marseilles
tablet," of about the fourth century B. C, found
at Marseilles but probably inscribed at Carthage.
This deals with sacrifices. Similar are two shorter

^CIS, I, 5. 2 CIS, I, 165.

26 THE OLD TESTAMENT

inscriptions, one of which is badly broken, of
about the same date, found at Carthage/

There is no native Hterature known of the Am-
monites, Edomites, and Canaanites. Some infor-
mation concerning their rehgious ideas is derived
from notices in the Old Testament and state-
ments in the literature of other nations. This is
supplemented in the case of the Canaanites by the
results of recent excavations in Palestine.

The native Moabite literature consists of one in-
scription, the Moabite stone, written by Mesha,
king of Moab, about 850 B. C. This gives some
religious information, and is supplemented from
other sources, particularly the Old Testament no-
tices.

It is unnecessary to give here an account of
the Hebrew literature found in the Old Testa-
ment.

The earliest Aramaic literature consists of three
inscriptions found at Zenjirli, in Northern Syria,
dating from the eighth century B. C. These are
historical and religious. There are many later
Aramaic inscriptions, of the sixth to the fourth
century and later, found in Arabia, Egypt, and
elsewhere, in which ordinarily there is a religious

iCIS, I, 166, 167.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 2/

element. The Christian Aramaic, i. e., Syriac,
literature has of course no information for the
present purpose.

The Arabic literature of the time of Muham-
mad and later is of course too late to be included
here. Information concerning the religion before
Muhammad comes largely from the Nabatsean in-
scriptions, written in Aramaic by an Arabic peo-
ple, with dates somewhat before and after the
time of Christ, and from traditions given by later
Arabic writers.^

Many inscriptions from Southern Arabia have
been published in recent years, although a ma-
jority of those discovered remain as yet unpub-
lished. These are of very uncertain date, although
it is thought that some of them are as early as
1000 B. C. The inscriptions published are largely
votive inscriptions. These afford much informa-
tion concerning the gods, and some details con-
cerning other features of the religion.

1 See especially Wellhausen, " Reste Arabischen Heideniums," 26.
ed.

Ill

PRELIMINARY PROBLEMS

THERE is a question concerning the method
of investigation and presentation which is
this : How largely shall chronological matters en-
ter into the discussion? In some specific cases
quite largely, more often practically not at all.
This is, in the first place, because chronolog-
ical data are comparatively scanty. In the Old
Testament the chronological development of the
thought is somewhat in dispute, as is well known.
But in the other Semitic nations the case is very
much worse. In fact, in nearly all cases among
these other nations it is impossible to trace the
chronological development of the thought from
any but the slightest indications. The difficulty is
well illustrated by the fact that most of the
Babylonian religious literature in existence is only
known from the copies in the library of Ashur-
banipal; that the composition of much was ear-
lier than this is unanimously agreed, but how early

there is very little, indeed, to indicate. Again,
28

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 29

for such a study as this it is often unimportant
to trace the chronological development of the
thought among the separate nations. Such a
matter might be of considerable importance in
relation to the specific question of borrowing. But
otherwise it is often sufficient for the purpose of
comparison to consider the sum of the teaching of
each religion, or the result of the development in
each nation, the highest point attained. In gen-
eral, this highest point was reached in all these
nations at periods of time not very remote from
each other.

Another problem is the question of borrowing
already mentioned. So far as it concerns the
question of borrowing by or from the Old Testa-
ment, this will be treated somewhat in a specific
way later. How far, however, was there borrow-
ing by the different Semitic nations, one from
another, aside from the Hebrews? The evidence
is not at hand to answer this question very fully.
There are suggestions of such borrowing: e. g.,
when Shamash appears as a deity among the Ara-
means and elsewhere it looks like a borrowing
from the Babylonians. Yet most of the deities of
each nation seem clearly to have had an inde-
pendent development. Their names largely dif-

30 THE OLD TESTAMENT

fer, and their characteristics as well. Such bor-
rowing as there has been, therefore, appears to be
for the most part in minor matters. Of course it
is quite within the possibilities that there is bor-
rowing that cannot easily be traced, but it does
not seem probable that there is a sufficient amount
of this to affect materially any results that may be
attained.

A similar question is how much borrowing
there may have been by Semites from non-Semitic
peoples with whom they were closely associated.
This, it would seem, might be expected to be a
more difficult matter to trace than that which has
just been mentioned. As a matter of fact, there
seems to be no good reason for supposing that
much borrowing of this kind has obtained, unless
it be in one particular case. It is thought by many
that the Babylonians borrowed quite largely, in
religion and in other things, from the Sumerians.
Sayce,^ e. g.^ thinks that many elements of the
Babylonian religion, especially animism, were
borrowed from the Sumerians. The whole Su-
merian question is far from being settled. That
the Sumerians were a reality is a conclusion that
may be considered generally accepted. But that

1 " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia," passim.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 3 1

by no means tells the whole story. The extreme
claims for Sumerian influence upon the Babylo-
nians are being considerably modified. It may
be regarded as reasonably certain that the Sume-
rians exerted no such great influence as is claimed
by Sayce. In fact, the present tendency is to re-
gard their actual influence as slight. Such mat-
ters as animism are found to some extent in the
other Semitic religions. So far as the religion is
concerned the following statements of Jastrow's
may be considered fairly to represent the views of
many : " It is generally admitted that all the
literature of Babylonia, including the oldest, and
even that written in the * ideographic ' style,
whether we term it ' Sumero-Akkadian ' or * hier-
atic,' is the work of the Semitic settlers of Meso-
potamia." " The culture, including the religion
of Babylonia, is likewise a Semitic production,
and since Assyria received its culture from Bab-
ylonia, the same remark holds good for entire
Mesopotamia." " The important consideration
for our purpose is, that the religious conceptions
and practices as they are reflected in the literary
sources now at our command are distinctly Bab-
ylonian. With this we may rest content, and, leav-
ing theories aside, there will be no necessity in

32 THE OLD TESTAMENT

an exposition of the religion of the Babylonians
and Assyrians to differentiate or to attempt to
differentiate between Semitic and so-called non-
Semitic elements. Local conditions and the long
period covered by the development and history of
the religion in question, are the factors that suf-
fice to account for the mixed and in many re-
spects complicated phenomena which this re-
ligion presents." ^

^ " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 23f.

PART II
DIVINE BEINGS

THE DIVINE NATURE

IN theological discussions three things es-
pecially are included in treating of the divine
nature — personality, unity, and spirituality. Be-
fore making a comparison on these points, a brief
statement concerning the usual Semitic way of
regarding divine beings may be desirable. It is
perhaps extreme to regard animism as an early
phase in all religions, yet it has been well estab-
hshed that it is a very common feature of primitive
religions. It seems reasonably clear that this was
the earliest stage that can be traced in the Semitic
religions. By animism is meant that religious be-
lief which ascribes life to all the objects and forces
of nature, including not only those of earth
and air, but also the heavenly bodies. Each ob-
ject and force was thus the seat of a spirit ; and,
in the primitive conception, all these spirits were
equal in power. Of this belief there are traces in
several of the Semitic religions, although they are
most marked among the Babylonians. But modi-

36 THE OLD TESTAMENT

fications necessarily arose. A difference in the
power of these spirits over human affairs was
soon beheved in. " The result of this would be
to give a preponderance to the worship of the
sun and moon and the water, and of such natural
phenomena as rain, wind, and storms, with their
accompaniment of thunder and lightning, as
against the countless sprites believed to be lurk-
ing everywhere." ^ With the sun and moon were
also associated some of the planets, so that the
religion took on an astral character. This was
characteristic of all the Semitic religions, ex-
cept that of the Old Testament. A different de-
velopment was the feature of local gods. This
resulted especially from the growth of civiliza-
tion and the rise of cities. Each city had its own
god, developed it may be from a spirit of that re-
gion, or one of the greater gods associated in
some way with that locality. Local gods were
thus in a sense a development of the more general
nature worship, although the connection with
nature might become somewhat obscured as a
result of the local feature of the worship. Among
the western Semites particular prominence was
given to the course of the year, the change of sea-

^ Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 48.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 37

sons, etc., in their supposed teaching concerning
the gods. There are doubtless, also, traces of to-
temism and ancestor worship among the Semites.
Totemism should probably be considered a de-
velopment of animism, the life of animals being
regarded as similar to that of gods and men. An-
cestor worship was not directly connected with
animism, its immediate source being probably the
mystery of death. How far the representation of
the gods as animals — which is common, especially
among the Babylonians — is due to totemism may
be questioned. To some extent this feature is
doubtless to be regarded as symbolical rather than
pictorial, the animal forms being employed in this
connection as symbols of power. An anthropo-
morphic tendency was doubtless present from the
first, the very idea of animism coming from at-
tributing features of human life to inanimate ob-
jects. In the close connection of the gods with
nature, however, this idea might not be promi-
nent. But some anthropomorphic tendency is
inevitable in thinking of powers not definitely
known. Hence, as a matter of fact, the anthropo-
morphic side was prominent in the Semitic re-
ligions, and the gods were represented in human
form, particularly by the Babylonians and Assyr-

38 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ians/ This anthropomorphism may have been
aided by ancestor worship, but is doubtless not
wholly due to that influence.

Personality. Personality is prominent in all
the Semitic religions. The thought of personality
might not unnaturally be obscured in two ways.
Nature gods might easily retain so much connec-
tion with nature that personality was obscured;
they were little more than forces of nature. In
all the religions under consideration, except that
of the Old Testament, the gods, as we have seen,
were nature gods in their origin, and did not en-
tirely lose their character as such. Yet, in all,
there has been so much development of the ideas
that the personality of the principal gods is not
sensibly obscured. The connection with nature
is subordinate. The Babylonian god Shamash,
e. g., was the sun-god, and this fact was apparently
always kept conspicuously in mind by ordinarily
using the determinative for divine beings when
the sun itself is designated, by the same word.
Yet the distinctive character of Shamash was as
the god of justice, in which conception the idea of

1 Nielsen, "Die altarabische Mondreligion," p. 118, claims that
in the South Arabic religion no god was worshiped as animal or
man. There are representations of gods in these forms, however,
which he considers to be only symbolical.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 39

personality was prominent. The minor gods,
however, as well as the spirits, have no strongly
marked individuality, so that in these the idea of
personality is not conspicuous. The other way in
which personality might be obscured is by a pan-
theistic tendency. There are traces of this among
the Semites, but only as a result of philosophical
speculation concerning divine unity, as will be
noted. The popular religion does not tend in this
direction. Personality, then, is nearly as promi-
nent in the other Semitic religions as in the Old
Testament. The Egyptian religion tended some-
what more strongly, in a speculative way, toward
pantheism, but here also personality was ordi-
narily a strongly marked feature.

In some respects, in fact, personality was over-
emphasized in the Semitic religions. This is, of
course, natural in polytheism. As the connection
with nature diminished, the gods were thought
of as unusual men in their characteristics. Divine
transcendence is not marked in polytheism, al-
though there were clearer traces of it in the
Semitic religions than in most others. Not only
an anthropomorphic method of representation,
but anthropomorphic conceptions were a promi-
nent characteristic of all the other Semitic re-

40 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ligions, except that of the Old Testament. This
appears prominently in the Babylonian mythology,
where human traits and emotions are a conspicu-
ous feature of the relations of the gods with each
other. In the Old Testament there is much an-
thropomorphic representation, but the later teach-
ing, at any rate, cannot be considered to result
from anthropomorphic conceptions. Some Old
Testament phrases which seem to present marked
anthropomorphic conceptions are evidently sur-
vivals in language from an earlier time, e. g., the
not uncommon description of sacrifices as the
"bread of God."

Unity. The noticeable feature here is the con-
trast between the monotheism of the Old Testa-
ment teaching and the polytheism of all the other
Semitic nations and Egypt. The oft-discussed
question whether the earlier Old Testament teach-
ing should be called monotheism or monolatry is
unimportant here, for no one doubts that most of
the Old Testament doctrine, including all the later
part, can be called by no other name than mono-
theism. Neither is the question of the origin
either of the name or worship of Yahweh of
any particular importance in this connection; for
that does not affect the prevailing teaching of the

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 4 1

Old Testament. In all the other religions con-
sidered polytheism is conspicuous. The origin of
the Semitic religions has already been indicated.
In harmony with that is the fact that all these
religions, except that of the Old Testament, are
polytheistic, and in some the gods are very nu-
merous. The early Babylonian pantheon, before
Hammurabi, contained sixty-five gods and god-
desses known by name, according to the list given
by Jastrow,^ aside from many spirits. The Arabs
had also many gods,^ and also subordinate spirits
known as jinns. The gods of the southern Arabs
so far found are comparatively few in number.
The Phoenician deities were about fifty in all.^
Several different gods are mentioned in the early
Aramaic inscriptions, as well as in the Old Testa-
ment accounts of the Arameans. The scantiness
of information concerning the other Semitic na-
tions— Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Canaan — does
not allow very definite statements, but it is clear
that they were polytheists.

It may be asked, however, whether there are
not approximations to monotheism in these other
religions. In several ways, somewhat related, they

^"Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens," I, p. 5 if.

2 See Wellhausen, " Reste arabischen 'Heidentums," 2d ed., passim.

» Thatcher, in " Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible," III, p. 861.

42 THE OLD TESTAMENT

did approach monotheism: these can be traced
chiefly in the Babylonian and Assyrian rehgions.
One way is through gradations among the gods.
In all systems of polytheism some gods are more
powerful or more prominent than others. This
comes about chiefly through the local relations
of the gods. In early times one god was es-
pecially the god of a city or district. As nations
were formed by the union of cities and districts
through conquest or otherwise, all the gods were
included in the pantheon of the whole region.
But each god still retained his special seat; and
in general the power of the god corresponded to
the political power of the city where his worship
was localized. The god of the capital city was
head of the pantheon. Thus Marduk, the god of
Babylon, was the head of the later Babylonian
pantheon ; Ashur, the god of the city Ashur, was
the chief god of Assyria. The supreme god was
often spoken of with an emphasis on his power
that separates him from the remaining gods.
There are many hymns in which this is done with
Marduk. Thus it is even said of him, " Thou
bearest the might of Anu, the might of Bel, the
might of Ea, dominion and majesty." ^ This does

1 Jastrow, " Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens," I, p. 513.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 43

not mean, however, that Marduk is identified with
these gods, but that in his position as head of the
pantheon he has taken their attributes. There
is to be noticed here a monarchical tendency, cor-
responding to the concentration of power in the
hands of the human monarch. Ashur was dis-
tinctively an Assyrian god, and the only one of
the Assyrian pantheon who was such. If his wor-
ship originated in Babylonia it was of slight im-
portance there. It thus came about that his power
in Assyria was very great. In the worship of
Ashur, however, there is no difference in kind
from the other gods, but only in degree. The
Assyrian kings mention prominently many other
gods along with Ashur, and are named for them.
The quotation given in reference to Marduk
suggests a more general matter, viz., a tend-
ency to syncretism, or identification of dijfferent
gods with each other. This is seen in the Babylo-
nian religion, e. g., in the identification of Mar-
duk with Bel, the god being known as Bel-Mar-
duk, and probably in the identification of Sin and
Nannar, Shamash and Babbar, etc. Partial trans-
ference of the same kind is seen in the passing of
attributes from one deity to another. Especially,
as in the case above, it is Marduk the supreme god

44 THE OLD TESTAMENT

who absorbs the characteristics of others. In one
text he seems to absorb their personaHties, so that
it is said, " Ninib is Marduk of strength, Nergal is
Marduk of battle, Zamama is Marduk of slaugh-
ter, Bel is Marduk of rule and order, Nabu is
Marduk of business. Sin is Marduk as illuminator
of night, Shamash is Marduk as lord of all which
is just, Adad is Marduk of rain, Sukh is Marduk

of the army, Marduk , Shukamuna

is Marduk of clay vessel." ^ Similar texts give to
Ea, Bel, Ninib, Nergal, and Adad the same role
as Marduk has in this text. This, however, is not
monotheism: it rather means that these great
gods are representatives of Marduk the supreme
deity, or of other gods.

Another way in which an approach to mono-
theism arose was the following: A worshiper
whose attention was concentrated upon one god
used extravagant language in reference to him,
language which suggests a monotheistic idea.
Thus of Sin, the Babylonian moon-god, it is said,
" In heaven who is exalted ? Thou alone art
exalted. On earth who is exalted ? Thou alone art
exalted." ^ But there are no indications that

1 Published by Pinches, " Journal of the Transactions of the Vic-
ria Institute," XXXIII (1896), p. 8f.

2 Jastrow, " The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 304.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 45

such worshipers devoted themselves simply to one
god; these expressions are merely rhetorical and
devotional. In fact, in this very hymn other gods
are recognized, in the statement, " O Lord, chief
of the gods, who on earth and in heaven alone is
exalted." Of Nabu, again, it is said, in an in-
scription on a statue of his by an officer of Adad-
nirari III, " O posterity, trust in Nabu, trust not
in another god." ^ This is thought to show a
political tendency, rather than a religious. It is
noticeable also that in this inscription there is
recognition of Ea and Bel.

The Egyptian religion has somewhat different
tendencies toward monotheism. Reference has
already been made to a tendency toward panthe-
ism, which is such more truly than toward mono-
theism. Maspero ^ quite certainly overstates the
case when he says, " The scribes, the priests, the
officials, all the educated world, in fact, of Egyp-
tian society, never professed that gross pagan-
ism which caused Egypt to be called with justice
* the mother of superstitions.' The various names
and innumerable forms attributed by the multitude

^K B, I, p. 192; Baentsch, " Altorientalischer und israelttischef
Monotheistnus," p. 10.

2 Quoted by Sayce, " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Bab-
ylonia," p. 246.

46 THE OLD TESTAMENT

to as many distinct and independent divinities
were for them merely names and forms of one
and the same being." This philosophical specula-
tion was probably of much less importance than
has often been supposed. A form of monotheism
was doubtless introduced into Egypt by the " here-
tic king " Amenhotep IV, in the worship of Aten,
the solar disk. There is much that is uncertain
about this movement. It does not seem to be con-
nected with the pantheistic tendency already
noted. It is questionable to what an extent the
movement was due to foreign influence, and
whether it should not be considered a political
movement rather than a religious one. In any
case, it lasted but a brief time. Some other mani-
festations of the sun-god seem to have been
worshiped along with Aten, so that perhaps it
should not be called in the full sense monotheism.
This can hardly be regarded as definitely establish-
ing any pronounced tendency in the real Egyp-
tian religion toward monotheism.

It seems evident from what has been said that
the utmost tendency toward monotheism in the
Semitic religions meant only that one god was
often regarded more highly than another, some-
times to an extreme extent. But it was rarely, if

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 47

ever, that any worshiped one god exclusively, and
there was seldom an idea that the worship of
one god was hostile to that of another, except in
the case of a god of a hostile land. The Egyptian
tendency was no stronger than the Semitic, ex-
cept as there was a greater inclination toward
pantheism.

A noticeable tendency has recently appeared
to speak of an ancient Oriental monotheism as
existing generally among the Semitic nations and
in Egypt, being most conspicuously exemplified
among the Babylonians and Assyrians, Arabs and
Egyptians.^ This is generally regarded as being
in its nature pantheistic — a teaching that all the
gods were but manifestations of one being. The
evidence for this view has for the most part
been indicated in what has already been said. A
prominent consideration, however, is the idea that
this doctrine was of an esoteric nature, being con-
fined to the priests. The general existence of such
esoteric doctrine, however, may well be ques-
tioned. The view depends largely upon the in-
terpretation of some passages, chiefly in the Bab-

1 On this see especially Jeremias, " Monotheistische Stromungen
innerhalb der babylonischen Religion"; Baentsch, " Altorientalischer
und israelitischer Monoiheismtis" ; Nielsen, "Die altarabische Mond-
religion und die mosaische Ueberlieferung"; and Jeremias, "Das
alte Testament im Lichie des Alien Orients," 2d ed.

48 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ylonian inscriptions, such as have already been
cited. These seem to the writer to suggest a
monarchical or syncretistic rather than a panthe-
istic view of the deities.

Nielsen ^ presents, however, a view that mono-
theism was the early common-Semitic belief, and
polytheism a later development. The idea of La-
grange ^ seems to be quite similar. Nielsen main-
tains that a conception of god as one and an eth-
ical personality is found in the early religion of
South Arabia, and was a primitive common-Sem-
itic idea. " Der Gotteshegriif ist hier hochst ein-
fach, ist in keiner Weise versinnlicht und mit ir-
gend etwas Aeiisseren in Verbindung gehracht;
nichts dentet daraiif hin, dass der Wirkungskreis
dieses Go ties auf ein hestimmtes Gestirn, Ort oder
Volk beschrdnkt ist, dass wir hier einen Astral-
Lokal- oder Nationalgott vor uns hahen; es ist
die Rede von ' Gott' niemals von ' Gotternf An-
statt diisserer Bestimmungen des gottlichen We-
sens Unden sich eine Fillle von Prddikaten, die dem
Gotteshegriife ethische, personliche Eigenschaften
beilegen. Gott ist die gerechte Liebe, gut, gnddig,
segnend u. s. w., ein personlicher Gott, denn er

* " Die altarabische Mondreligion und die mosaische Ueberliefer-
ung," especially p. lof.

* Etudes sur les Religions Semitiques," pp. 70-83.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 49

weisSj erinnert, erhorf u. s. w., ein gerechter Gott,
der seine Gehote den Menschen erteilt, aber vor
alien Dingen ein liehender Gott, der mit den
Menschen in Bund tritt und ihnen den Frieden
verlieht/' ^

This view, however, does not seem to be justi-
fied by the evidence. There are ethical traits
here, to be sure, but the facts presented do not
warrant the conclusion that here is a god who
approaches ethical completeness. The evidence
of the author comes primarily from South Ara-
bian proper names, which have such forms as wad-
dada-ihi, god loves; tsadaq-ilu, god is righteous;
ihi-magir, god is kind, etc. These proper names
are found in inscriptions, but are believed by
Nielsen to show an earlier stage of the religion
than the inscriptions themselves. These names
are supplemented by similar names from Bab-
ylonian inscriptions, from the period of Hammu-
rabi and earlier. God here, it is said by Nielsen,
is one, as indicated by the use simply of the word
ilu, and fully ethical, as indicated by these char-
acteristics of his which are stated. But the un-
confirmed evidence of the proper names is an un-

* " Die altarahische Mondreligion und die mosaische Ueberliefer-
iing," p. I of.

50 THE OLD TESTAMENT

certain reliance for so general a conclusion. In
fact, the inscriptions of South Arabia testify to at
least three or four astral deities, of a nature simi-
lar to the corresponding gods in the Babylonian
pantheon. It seems highly probable, therefore,
that there was always a plurality of gods in the
conception of the Southern Arabs, and that they
were nature gods, and only imperfectly ethical.

The argument for monotheism from the use of
ilu is very precarious. Such a usage might readily
be found under polytheism, for various reasons.
One reason might be that the god in mind was
the special god of the locality, not called by name
because well known ; another, that the names were
familiar ones, and used in an abbreviated or gen-
eralized form, as was often the case.

Monotheism is by no means so exclusively the
feature which gives superiority to a religion as is
sometimes assumed. Monotheism alone does not
assure a high standard, as is evidenced by Mu-
hammadanism. Yet it is a necessary condition of
high development. The ethical character of re-
ligion is inevitably imperfect under polytheism:
the gods in a polytheistic system are for the most
part non-ethical or unethical in their character,
as will be seen more fully later.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 5 1

Spirituality. Spirituality is a marked char-
acteristic of the Old Testament teaching: it is
largely absent from the religions of the other
Semitic nations and Egypt. Some have ques-
tioned, however, how fully the spirituality of
Yahweh is taught in the Old Testament. It is
undoubtedly true that this conception was one
which the Hebrews had great difficulty in grasp-
ing. The popular religion of every period before
the exile had only an imperfect idea of it. Yet
the teaching of the Old Testament made it promi-
nent from the first. The second commandment,
which must in any case be relatively early, if it
does not directly teach the spirituality of God,
strongly implies it. This feature is always em-
phasized as well in the teachings of the prophets.

Several things may seem to teach limitations
of the spirituality of God in the Old Testament.
One is the emphasis upon personality, with the
resulting anthropomorphisms. It has perhaps
already been sufficiently indicated under person-
ality that this does not denote a real limitation.
Another thing is the connection of Yahweh
with nature. It is held by many that the con-
ception of Yahweh in the early part of the Old
Testament includes many traits of a nature god.

52 THE OLD TESTAMENT

But, in any case, it is not claimed that this appears
in the teaching of the later part of the Old Testa-
ment. Further, these descriptions of natural phe-
nomena in connection with the theophanies of
Yahweh are of such variety that they clearly do
not indicate that he is thought of as a nature god.
Another feature is the externality of the worship.
This has two phases which need consideration.
One is that the worship is localized, at first to
some extent in connection with the ark, and after-
ward at the temple. This no doubt made it easy
to think of the center of worship as the abode of
Yahweh. But such was not the real meaning of
this feature. Rather, the centralization of wor-
ship indicates, prominently at least, an emphasis
upon the religious unity of the nation. It is
clearly taught that the temple is not the real abode
of Yahweh. That abode is often spoken of as
heaven, but even that is considered as unable to
contain him, as it is expressed in the prayer of
Solomon (i Kings 8 : 27), ''But will God in
very deed dwell on the earth ? behold, heaven and
the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how
much less this house that I have builded ! " The
other phase is the prominence of ritual, external
rites, in the worship. These rites may be of such

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 53

a nature as to imply a belief in God as material,
or they may not. Certain features in connection
with sacrifices might seem to look rather definitely
in this direction. The origin of Semitic sacrifices,
as will be seen later, is doubtless to be sought in
a physical conception of God. Some phrases used
also imply that thought, as the description of the
sacrifices as wnb^ onS, bread of God. But this
early thought has doubtless disappeared, at least
largely, in the Old Testament teaching concerning
sacrifices, although not in the popular conception.
The culmination of the teaching concerning God,
further, as will be indicated later, is not found
in the sacrifices, but in the prophetical writings.

There is no real conception of spirituality in the
other Semitic religions. In origin the gods are
material, being connected with the objects of
nature. And this connection is never entirely lost
from view. In their later development, however,
as has already been said, emphasis was placed
upon the idea of personality. Then the gods were
regarded as men of superior power; and they
were no more regarded as pure spirit than man is.
Again, the representations of the gods show the
same state of things. In all these other Semitic
religions the gods were regularly represented by

54 THE OLD TESTAMENT

images. Of course it is always a possibility that in
some minds an image may have been regarded in
a purely symbolical way, and the god not identi-
fied with the image. The common use of images,
however, would show that this was not the pre-
vailing view. The treatment of the images shows,
moreover, that in general the god was thoroughly
identified with the image. By the Assyrians
and Babylonians, e. g., the images of conquered
cities or countries, whether related peoples or not,
were carried off to the capital of the conquer-
or; and later they were sometimes rescued and
returned to their original locations. The forbid-
ding of images in the second commandment in
the Old Testament brings the Old Testament into
sharp contrast at this point with the Semitic cus-
toms and thought universal elsewhere.

In Egypt practically the same condition is
found as in the general Semitic thought. Here
also the gods were thought of in general as men,
and were represented by images and also by
animals.

The later conceptions in all these nations, so
far as known, tended somewhat toward the idea
of spirituality, but failed to attain to it. The gross-
ness of the early materialistic conceptions was

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 55

somewhat refined, but not entirely lost. The
broadening of political divisions effected a similar
condition in the sphere of religion; the god who
was early limited to a small territory became iden-
tified with a much larger region. The conquering
gods, such as Ashur, were considered to conquer
the territory of other gods. Yet the power of the
gods never went far beyond the country subject
to them, the conception of any god as having do-
minion over the world being ordinarily unattain-
able under polytheism. And even that conception
would not necessarily be a conception of a spirit-
ual being, although it would approach to it.

The pantheistic speculation of the Egyptians
looks in the direction of spirituality. But this,
as has already been remarked, probably had but
little real effect upon the religion as a whole;
neither was it clearly a spiritual conception.

The monarchical form of polytheism, already
referred to, marks a culmination in the exaltation
of the power of a single god, and a consequent
diminution of the local limitations. Yet some idea
of these limitations remained.

A certain transcendental element in the Bab-
ylonian religion comes from the fact that, in the
later thought, the proper home of the gods was

56 THE OLD TESTAMENT

in heaven, their earthly abodes being simply the
counterpart of their heavenly residences. This
marks a contrast with humanity, and affords a
starting-point for the idea of spirituality, which,
however, remains no more than a slight tendency.

METAPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES

AS usually stated in modern phraseology the
natural or metaphysical attributes of God
are eternity, omnipotence, omnipresence, and om-
niscience. A statement as definitely theological
as this goes beyond the treatment of the Old Tes-
tament. Yet substantially the modern idea is
found there. The teaching is that Yahweh is in-
definitely superior to ordinary human limitation in
regard to time, power, space, and knowledge. In
particular this is strongly affirmed in the prophets.
Modern language speaks of God as infinite. The
Old Testament writers meant very nearly the
same when they spoke, e. g., of the majesty of
God. The difference is that while the term infinite
is theoretical, without limitations, the Old Testa-
ment thought is usually practical, indefinitely
transcending human limitations. Yet the differ-
ence is slight, and at times the Old Testament
statements contain strong theoretical affirmations.
The religions of the other Semitic nations show

58 THE OLD TESTAMENT

contrast with the Old Testament far more than
resemblance at this point; the gods only imper-
fectly transcend human limitations, as will be
seen from a more detailed consideration.

Eternity. Some of the strongest affirmations
on this point in the Old Testament are found in
the following passages, Exod. 15 : i8; Ps. lo :
16; 103 : 17; Isa. 51 : 6; 41 : 4; 43 • 10; 44 -
6; 48 : 12. In accordance with the practical na-
ture of the Old Testament these passages speak
more especially of limitless duration in the future,
yet they speak of the past as well. In some cases
the words used express only indefinite duration, in
others it is clearly limitless. The many passages
in which God is spoken of as creator of all things
look in the same direction, i, e., they indicate in-
definite past duration, although not necessarily
eternal.

Polytheism brings time limitation in two ways :
it limits the gods in their past history by reason
of the fact that one is descended from another;
and it limits them to a certain extent in the same
way by their connection with created material
objects, especially the sun, moon, and stars. The
first tendency would of course leave it possible
that the earliest god should be thought of as ex-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 59

isting from limitless time in the past. As a mat-
ter of fact, however, there is no real evidence of
such a conception. Several Babylonian gods are
spoken of in different accounts as creators of
everything; but this is a general, poetic phrase,
conveying no very specific meaning. In the real
Babylonian system the earliest triad as ordinarily
reckoned, all standing on an equality in point of
origin, was Anu, Bel, and Ea. Anu was god of
heaven, Bel of earth, and Ea of water. But back
of these were two — a male and female — ^An-shar
and Ki-shar, shadowy beings, seldom referred to,
mere general personifications of heaven and earth.
Hence, it is evident that among the Babylonians
there is no definite idea of past eternal existence of
any god. Among the other Semitic nations there
is hardly material enough to form the basis of a
definite statement, but apparently the facts are
somewhat similar. It is evident that in all the
connection of the deities with natural objects is
prominent. The Egyptian representation of the
age of the gods is very confused and inconsistent.
But as the prominent worship is solar, that consti-
tutes a limitation.

In general it is evident that so far as concerns
the future the gods were thought of as living in-

6o THE OLD TESTAMENT

definitely. It is not a point which is directly
touched upon, however, so much as it is assumed.
But the material connection here also interposes
a limit to theoretical eternity, although not to
indefinite duration, practically considered. The
gods were like men in many ways, and they
fought with each other, but ordinarily did not
destroy each other: they were only occasionally
represented as subject to death. The connection
with material objects doubtless helped to convey
the idea of unlikeness to men at this point.

Omnipotence. The Old Testament expresses
very strongly the omnipotence of God. Usually,
of course, it is considered in certain practical rela-
tions. Yet there are many assertions that the
power of God is indefinitely above any human
power, and in marked contrast with the power-
lessness of the gods of the nations. The power
of God is contemplated usually from two asso-
ciated points of view: as exhibited in creation,
and as shown in his continual control over na-
ture, individuals, and nations. There is a wide
sweep of his power, no nation of the earth, no
part of the universe even, being outside of its
scope. These teachings are found especially in
such passages as Isa. 40; 43 : 13; 45 : 9; Amos

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS

9:7; Jer. 18. How much limitation of this con-
ception may be found in the early part of the Old
Testament is unimportant, inasmuch as the teach-
ing of these passages represents at any rate the
height which is reached and maintained by the
Old Testament.

In all the other Semitic religions it is evident
that much emphasis was placed upon the power of
the gods : they were regarded as far superior to
men. It can hardly be doubted that the early com-
mon-Semitic word for god was the one found hi
the Hebrew, ^«, the same word being in use in
nearly or quite all the other Semitic languages/
The derivation, and hence the original signifi-
cance, of this word are much disputed. It seems
probable to the writer, however, that this original
significance was to be strong. If so, the promi-
nent early idea concerning the gods was that of
strength.

It is also evident, however, that the power of
the gods falls far short of omnipotence. There
are limitations to divine power, limitations which
vary greatly in their force at different points, yet
which are never passed. Polytheism itself consti-

iSee especially Lagrange, " ttudes sur les Religions Setnitiques,"
pp. 70-83.

62 THE OLD TESTAMENT

tutes an important limitation. The power of one
god is greatly limited by that of others, in a poly-
theistic system. This appears, e. g., in the Baby-
lonian mythology, where the gods quarrel among
themselves and one thwarts the plans of others.
Of course the supreme god is superior chiefly in
power. But that power does not reach omnipo-
tence.

Closely connected with this is another idea,
which constitutes a more definite limitation. This
was the idea of local gods. Originally the power
of a god was conceived as confined to the city
where he dwelt and the region immediately about.
This continued to be the conception to a certain
extent in all these religions. Yet in process of
time, especially as a result of the unification of
national life, this conception lost somewhat its
definite character, although it did not entirely
disappear. There remained in full force, at any
rate, the national limitation. The power of a god
was ordinarily limited to the territory of his own
nation. Babylonia and Assyria religiously were
in most respects one nation. Hence, the power of
a Babylonian god might extend over Babylonia
and Assyria, but would not necessarily do so ; and
would ordinarily be limited to that region.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 63

It is doubtless a result of the same general idea
that the gods in general in the Babylonian re-
ligion have no relation with the underworld,
Aralu. This is conceived of as a place, but one
with which the ordinary gods have nothing to do.
It has a god and goddess of its own, commonly
known as Nergal and AUatu. The teachings on
this matter will be further discussed at a later
point.

Another limitation in power is also conspicuous
— limitation in the sphere of activity of a particu-
lar god. As the idea of local gods became less
distinct, this other limitation increased in force.
In the early conception a god had control of only
a small region, yet within that region the sphere
of his activity was not expressly limited. Later,
inasmuch as many gods had power over the same
region, or even over a whole nation, it was inevi-
table that conflict of authority should be avoided
to a certain extent by limiting the sphere of the
activity of each one, although of course this was
done but imperfectly. Shamash, e. g., in the
Babylonian system, was the god of justice, with
which none of the other gods had much to do;
Nabu was the god of literature, etc. So fully was
this felt that when literary activity became promi-

64 THE OLD TESTAMENT

nent in Assyria, in the reign of Shalmaneser II
and his successors, the worship of Nabu received
a new impetus, so that Adadnirari III built him a
temple in Kalkhi ; and this in spite of the fact that
in general the power of Ashur, the great god of
Assyria, had less limitation, perhaps, than that of
any other Semitic god.

The Babylonian incantation literature shows
limitations in the power of the gods. An especially
powerful god is appealed to, with the belief that
his power will prevail over that of another god,
who is indifferent or hostile. This literature also
indicates that the god always obeyed, necessarily,
the incantation if it was exactly right, i. c, there
were formulae which surely had power over the
god. This literature is not the highest expres-
sion of the Babylonian religion ; still it constitutes
an important part of it.

In some ways individual limitations, before
mentioned, were diminished in particular cases,
especially by war. Church and State were in-
separably connected in these religions : the divine
power varied with the power of the king. Con-
quest added to the power of the special god of the
victorious king ; the conquered land became a part
of his territory ; the gods as well were conquered

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 65

and became subject to him. But this increase of
power itself emphasizes its hmitation. It is not
world-wide, it is a power which actually embraces
only the lands included in the empire. State-
ments that go beyond this are general and rhetor-
ical, parallel to the rhetorical phrases in which the
king emphasizes his own power.

Probably Ashur had less local limitation than
any other Semitic deity. He was the head of the
Assyrian pantheon, as Marduk of the Babylonian.
But the worship of Marduk was closely connected
with his city, Babylon; and he is usually men-
tioned in connection with several other Babylo-
nian gods who approach him quite closely in
prominence, especially Nabu. Ashur, as well,
was originally the god of the city Ashur ; but his
worship is never connected in any distinctly local
sense with that city. Rather, as the country re-
ceives his name along with the city, he becomes
at an early date distinctly the national god rather
than a city god. The uncertainty concerning the
meaning and origin of the name Ashur does not
materially affect the facts as stated. As a national
god a new temple was built for him whenever the
capital was moved, from Ashur to Kalkhi, and
from Kalkhi to Nineveh; but the worship was

66 THE OLD TESTAMENT

Still continued in the others. He was distinctly
the national god of Assyria, not of Babylonian
origin, unless remotely. He was especially a war-
like god, and as such his most distinctive repre-
sentation was by a warlike standard carried from
place to place. As the national warlike god he
was regarded in a more exclusive way than any
Babylonian god: no other god whom the Assyr-
ians worshiped could approach him in power.
Yet the Assyrian kings ordinarily mentioned other
gods at the same time with him in their inscrip-
tions. Adadnirari III placed special emphasis
upon the worship of Nabu, and Shamash is men-
tioned prominently along with Ashur, e, g., by
Shalmaneser and Tiglathpileser HI. Ashur has
no consort in any real sense, which gives a sug-
gestion of exclusiveness. Yet this idea can easily
be carried too far, especially in view of the facts
previously mentioned. The facts do not warrant
such extreme statements as are made by Sayce,^
" Assur consequently differs from the Babylonian
gods, not only in the less narrowly local character
that belongs to him, but also in his solitary nature.
. . He is like the king of Assyria himself, brook-
ing no rival, allowing neither wife nor son to

* " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia," p. 37if.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 6y

share in the honors which he claims for himself
alone. He is essentially a jealous god, and as
such sends forth his Assyrian adorers to destroy
his unbelieving foes. . . We can, in fact, trace
in him all the lineaments upon which, under other
conditions, there might have been built up as pure
a faith as that of the God of Israel."

Omnipresence. In the Old Testament this is
emphatically taught in relation to Yahweh. Even
in the earlier portions there can have been but
little limitation on this point. It is the same God
who is with Abraham in Ur, and Palestine, and
with his descendants in Egypt, and later in Pales-
tine. The freedom of Yahweh from the limita-
tions of space is found with emphasis in such pas-
sages as Gen. 28 : 15; Amos 9:2-4; Jer. 23 :
23f; Isa. 43 : 2; Ps. 139 : 5-10. The last pas-
sage, and others show Yahweh in complete con-
trol of Sheol, a control which in some of the ear-
liar passages appears less definitely.

The general conception in the other religions
need be touched only briefly. Substantially it has
been covered in what has been said already in
reference to omnipotence. One of the limitations
in power constitutes, of course, the chief limitation
in reference to space, the conception of local gods.

68 THE OLD TESTAMENT

The conception was at most a national one: the
presence of the god on earth does not extend be-
yond the land in which he dwells, except as con-
quest increases the dominion. The god goes no
farther than the king does.

Omniscience. This also is strongly asserted in
reference to Yahweh in the Old Testament. It is
associated closely with the other natural attri-
butes, especially with omnipresence, in the Old
Testament treatment. Many of the passages
given in reference to omnipresence teach this as
well. It is emphasized in the Old Testament that
the knowledge of Yahweh embraces the universe.
It also includes that wiiich is hidden from men,
especially the inner thoughts and purposes of in-
dividuals. Particularly in the prophets Yahweh's
knowledge of the future is emphasized; this is
known to him as well as the present. He is there-
fore able to make his plans with reference to the
future, and has the power to carry out these plans.

In the other religions the limitations already
stated apply here as well. All the limitations pre-
viously mentioned imply or demand limitation of
knowledge also. The Old Testament concep-
tion, just mentioned, of Yahweh's knowledge of
the future course of events in the world is with-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 69

out parallel in the other religions. The Old Tes-
tament prophecy which is based upon this con-
ception thus stands by itself without a parallel in
the other Semitic religions.

The Babylonian penitential psalms indicate tnat
the gods were considered to have an extensive
knowledge of their worshipers. They knew es-
pecially their failures and sins, some of which
were unknown to the individuals themselves.
This appears in the frequent appeal to the gods
in reference to some offense unwittingly com-
mitted. But this is not a knowledge as thorough
as the Old Testament speaks of as belonging to
Yahweh.

Ill

MORAL ATTRIBUTES

IT is often thought that there is a fundamental
conception of the Old Testament, that of the
holiness of Yahweh, expressed by the root mp^ and
derived words, which should be included at this
point, on the ground that by holiness is meant
ethical completeness. It therefore seems neces-
sary to discuss a little this conception of holiness/
The meaning ethical completeness must be re-
jected. There is very little to favor the meaning.
There are only a few passages which seem to
suggest it, in which holiness appears to be a strong
general designation of the character and activity
of Yahweh. In general, however, the use of the
word does not suggest an ethical meaning, but a
ritual. According to the usual treatment of the
matter, it seems difficult to assign any very defi-
nite meaning to holiness, particularly as used of
God. In reference to men, animals, and material

^ See especially the treatment of Baudissin, " Studien sur Semiti-
schen Religionsgeschichte," II, pp. 1142.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 71

objects it is supposed to mean, and doubtless often
does mean, consecrated to God; but this suggests
no definite meaning for the word as applied to
God himself.

Probably the most common view at the present
time is that the root mp^ meant originally to be
separate, separated. Then this came to mean,
when applied elsewhere than to God, separated
from sin and uncleanness, and separated unto
God. As used of God, it meant separation from
created things, especially from their imperfection,
sin, and uncleanness. It is conceded, however,
that the meaning to he separate for the root is
only conjectural, and is assigned on the supposi-
tion that the original form of the root was ip,
which is found in other words having a general
meaning to cut. This etymological basis, how-
ever, is very uncertain; hence it seems to the
present writer that there is no real evidence con-
cerning the original meaning of the root.

In Babylonian the verb is found, quddushu,
with the usual meaning to make clean, ceremoni-
ally; although the common meaning of the He-
brew to dedicate to God seems to be the basis of
the meaning of the Babylonian qadishtu, a temple
prostitute. In Hebrew, also, as well as in Babylo'

'J2 THE OLD TESTAMENT

nian, there are passages in which the words under
discussion are apparently used simply of ceremo-
nial cleanness, as in i Sam. 21:5. It is probable,
therefore, that the earliest meaning which can
now be traced is this, to he ceremonially clean.
The first application of this meaning was doubt-
less to men, animals, and material objects, not to
God. But later it was applied to God, as deno-
ting the one who is pure, free from all ceremonial
uncleanness. Since, however, it is an essential
condition that whatever is consecrated to God
should be ceremonially clean, the word takes on
this added meaning, consecrated to God, sacred.
As used of God, the word also assumes various
connotations, to some extent adding an ethical
idea to the ceremonial, although the latter remains
always the prominent conception. As the thought
of the word suggests a contrast with many human
and material objects, it gains an added significance
along this line, suggesting somewhat the power of
God. It is interesting, however, in this connec-
tion, to note that Ezekiel, the ritual prophet, uses
holy of Yahweh, but never righteous; while his
contemporary, Jeremiah, reverses the usage, never
applying holy to Yahweh, except in chap. 50 and
51, probably later than Jeremiah in their present

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS y2>

form, although in 23 : 9 he applies it to the
words of Yahweh.

In Babylonian, as has been said, the common
meaning of the word is the early one, to he clean,
ceremonially, or, as there used in the intensive
stem, to make clean. In Hebrew this meaning is
found in a few cases. This meaning is also found
in the application of the word to Yahweh in He-
brew, although with additional connotations, as
has been noted. The word is applied to the gods,
outside of Hebrew, only in the Phoenician, so far
as has been found. In the inscription of Eshmu-
nazar in that language (11. 9 and 22),' the gods are
called Diynpn djSkh and otynpn d:S«, the holy gods.
The meaning here is evidently similar to that in
the Hebrew when applied to Yahweh. The de-
rived meaning, to consecrate to god, is found in
the Babylonian qadishtu, as noted, and is the com-
mon meaning in the Hebrew, when applied to ob-
jects other than God. The same use is found in
Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic.

So far as these words are concerned, then, they
do not show any general ethical conception of the
character of Yahweh, as is often thought. The
conception of holiness, in fact, in the Old Testa-

iCIS I, 3.

74 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ment has to do with Yahweh in relation to ritual
matters. The prominent thought is that Yahweh
is ceremonially pure, and as such demands clean-
ness and abhors uncleanness. This ritual concep-
tion is evidently based upon an original physical
idea of the divine ; yet it seems clear that this phy-
sical thought is not retained in the Old Testa-
ment. Nevertheless, this ceremonial side of the
conception of God is found, which is based upon
the common-Semitic ideas. The ritual legislation,
where this idea is largely found, presents then, in
general, a more primitive conception of Yahweh
than is found elsewhere.

Aside from the ritual legislation, the presenta-
tion of the character of Yahweh is distinctly ethi-
cal— ethical completeness belongs to him. This
is not shown in any one word so much as in the
whole treatment of the character of God : he has
regard to the ethical as well as the religious life
of men, and demands of them moral acts; see
also what is said later under righteousness. Im-
moral acts are forbidden, sometimes specifically,
e. g., in the case of prostitution, in connection with
the worship of Yahweh. The prophets, psalmists,
and wisdom writers present the character of Yah-
weh as thoroughly ethical. This is the distinctive

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 75

feature of the Old Testament teaching concern-
ing the moral character of Yahweh.

There is no conception like this in the other re-
ligions. Such an idea as ethical completeness is
not found in connection with any of their gods.
For the most part the gods of the other Semitic
religions are non-moral, as is natural with gods
derived from the forces of nature. This means
that there is no moral side to their character.
Some gods are immoral; they sanction or com-
mand acts which are immoral. Among the Assyr-
ians and Babylonians this was true especially of
Ishtar of Babylonia, who was worshiped with
prostitution. The Ishtar cult was certainly widely
extended among the Semites, and this was doubt-
less a usual feature of the worship.^ Where eth-
ical traits are found in the teachings concerning
the gods, they are incomplete, it is only isolated
features that appear. For the consideration of
Nielsen's view of early common-Semitic ethical
monotheism, see the treatment under monotheism.

There are several specific moral attributes of
Yahweh emphasized in the Old Testament which
should be noticed briefly.

Faithfulness. Faithfulness or trustworthiness

1 Sec especially Barton, "A Sketch of Semitic Origins," pp. 42f, 84.

76 THE OLD TESTAMENT

is one of the most prominent of these attributes.
In the Old Testament treatment this is regarded
as one of the notable results of Yahweh's eternity :
because he continues from age to age, his plans
and purposes, his character, are the same. This
is a trait which gives encouragement to his wor-
shipers : their treatment will be in accord with his
well-known character, not arbitrary or erratic.
The uniformity of his attitude can be depended
on: he acts in accordance with fixed principles.
The presence of ritual offenses only slightly modi-
fies this, because, as will be seen later, the ritual
element is not to be regarded as the culmination
of the Old Testament, and is held, in fact, within
narrowly circumscribed limits.

It is only to a slight extent that this trait can
be discerned in any of the other Semitic religions.
The way in which the favor of any of the gods
could be secured and held was a matter on which
no definite information could be obtained. Mis-
fortune was really the only indication that any-
thing was wrong in the relations with the gods.
The nation, and the king as its principal represent-
ative, could depend on the favor of the gods as
no individual was able to do. Yet national dis-
aster was not unknown, indicating the anger of

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 77

some god, an anger that might be due merely
to divine caprice. In individual life, especially,
there were no fixed principles of divine favor.
This might be won by moral character, but chiefly
by ritual, especially sacrifices, or by magical in-
cantations. In Babylonia the last was the most
certain way, while among all the Semitic nations
sacrifice was very prominent. In all these relig-
ions the ritual and magical element is the promi-
nent feature: it is not to an appreciable extent
replaced by anything higher. No stress was laid,
further, upon a continuance of the same divine
character from age to age. As a matter of fact,
the general character of each god did remain the
same, for the most part, but in the aggregate
there was considerable change. This is specially
noticeable among the Babylonians and the Egyp-
tians, where there was a large amount of assimi-
lation of the deities to each other, obscuring the
individuality of each, so that phrases originally
specially appropriate to one were applied almost
indiscriminately. Further, among the Babylo-
nians, at least, there were two or more well-
marked phases in the character of several of the
prominent gods, which must have discouraged
still more any belief in faithfulness as an element

78 THE OLD TESTAMENT

of divine character: e. g., Shamash was the god
of war and of justice.

Righteousness. This attribute is expressed in
Hebrew by the word pnv and its derivatives. The
fundamental idea of the word is not certain, but
it seems to be that that is righteous which is right
in the highest sense. The righteousness of Yah-
weh is used in two ways especially. In the
broader sense it is a comprehensive term, sug-
gesting an idea somewhat like the ethical com-
pleteness of God, if not directly expressing it. In
such a meaning as this it is without parallel among
the other Semitic religions, as already noted.
This idea may also be somewhat restricted, indi-
cating the ethical completeness of Yahweh with
special reference to some particular attribute. In
the other way, the narrower sense, the righteous-
ness of Yahweh is his justice, by virtue of which
he gives to each man his due, in reward or pun-
ishment. In this sense a comparison may profit-
ably be made. Here and there it may be that
there are limitations to the teaching of the justice
of Yahweh, especially in the earlier parts of the
Old Testament. But the general teaching of the
Old Testament is that Yahweh deals with men in
accordance with their real deserts. The justice of

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 79

Yahweh is seen more especially in relation to
national affairs. The chosen nation, Israel, was
destined for blessings. But this, it was always
understood, was only on condition that they obey
Yahweh. Yet this condition was often forgotten
by the people generally, so that undoubtedly the
popular idea, especially shortly before the exile,
was that Yahweh must inevitably favor his own
people; it was impossible that he should destroy
them on account of sin. But the prophets gave
no encouragement to this idea, and a large part
of their teaching was the insistence upon Yah-
weh's justice. If the nation sins it will be pun-
ished, even destroyed. The special privileges of
the chosen nation but increase its guilt, and there-
fore the certainty of punishment (Amos 3:2).
Foreign nations are agents in the hands of Yah-
weh for the punishment of Israel, and conse-
quently they are given the victory. Yet these for-
eign nations also are in his power, and he will
deal justly with them; ultimately they shall be
punished as well. The justice of Yahweh in his
dealings with all nations is emphasized in such
passages as Isa. 3 : 13; 2 : 19, 21 ; 10 : 23; 14 :
26; 28 : 22. The relation of the individual to
Yahweh is not neglected, however, in thinking of

80 THE OLD TESTAMENT

the nation. The justice of God is shown clearly
in relation to the individual. This is emphasized
especially in some of the later prophets, as in Jer.
31 : 29, 30; Ezek. 18, and often in the wisdom
literature.

Such a conception of impartial justice between
individuals and nations is not met with outside
of the Old Testament. The localization of gods
meant the localization of justice as well. The
conception of national gods meant that such a god
had no relation to other peoples except that of
hostility. Justice was inconceivable in reference
to dealings with other nations. National disaster
was attributed to divine anger, but the grounds
of the anger could only imperfectly be grasped ; it
was not based chiefly upon divine justice. On
a smaller scale, the conception that any god was
concerned with exact justice to individuals was
held only to a limited extent. The prevalence of
magic showed lack of confidence in the justice of
the deities as well as in their faithfulness. In
the character of most of the gods justice does not
appear at all. Hardly a trace of the conception of
divine justice can be found except in Babylonia,
South Arabia, and Egypt. In Babylonia justice
cannot be called a trait in the character of any

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 8 1

god except Shamash, although the connection of
the gods with each other leads to occasional al-
lusions to it in the case of other gods. Shamash
is the " great judge of heaven and earth," ^ and
as such is the god of justice. It is from Shamash
that Hammurabi says he received his code of
laws. Shalmaneser II calls Shamash *' the judge
of the four quarters of the world, who leads aright
mankind." " And it was a fairly exalted idea of
justice that was found in connection with him.
Hammurabi uses such expressions as these, " By
the command of Shamash, the great judge of
heaven and earth, may I make righteousness to
shine forth on the land." '* Let any oppressed
man, who has a cause, come before my image as
king of righteousness ! " '* In the days that are
yet to come, for all future time, may the king who
is in the land observe the words of righteousness
which I have written upon my monument."
" That the strong might not oppress the weak,
and that they should give justice to the orphan
and the widow." ^

Yet this is only one phase of the character of
Shamash. As a sun-god he has the limitation of

1 Hammurabi, Code, col. XL, 1. Ssf. = Monolith, col. I, 1. 3.

3 Code, col. XL : 11. 84-88; col. XLI : 11. 1-5, 59-65; col. XL : 11.
59-62.

S2 THE OLD TESTAMENT

that material connection. He is also a god of
war, in which phase of his character justice was
obviously subordinate. His justice had to do with
externals. He favored kings not because they
were righteous, but because they claimed to be
righteous. He is prominent in the incantation
texts, where no clear idea of justice can be per-
ceived. These things limit the conception of jus-
tice, even in the case of Shamash.

In the Egyptian religion Osiris is the only
prominent god whose character shows a concep-
tion of justice. He was originally a man, it is
said, conspicuous for righteousness and mercy.
In his character as judge of men after death he
takes into account prominently their moral char-
acter as determining their destiny. Yet in other
representations of the future life, ritual observ-
ances have chiefly to do with the final condition.
In general, the prominence of ritual and magic
obscures the Egyptian conception of divine
justice.

In the South-Arabic religion, the only material
so far available showing a conception of divine
justice is in the proper names already referred to.
Here are found such names as tsadaq-ilu, god is
righteous. This, of course, without further evi-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 83

dence, can only indicate that there were traces of
the conception of divine justice in this reHgion.

Love, including mercy and grace. Mercy is
help to the needy; grace, favor to the undeserv-
ing. Both are prominent in all the Old Testa-
ment. Love, in some respects a stronger term, is
emphasized chiefly in the prophets. It is es-
pecially from the grace of God that forgiveness of
sins comes and must come, since man is alv^ays
undeserving by reason of sin. These qualities are
ordinarily manifested toward Israel, although it
is a part of the prophetic expectation that the
nations shall in the future share in the grace and
forgiveness of Yahweh. Some instances are found
of this participation in the present time; such is
the prominent lesson of the book of Jonah. The
love of Yahweh clothes itself in the forms of
human relationship — father, husband — yet it is
not a physical love but an ethical ; it is found in
the prophets who constantly insist upon the rela-
tionship of Yahweh to his people on the ethical
side.

This attribute is undoubtedly found to a large
extent in all the religions under consideration.
In the general Semitic conception the gods are
favorable to men. Yet in polytheism, while some

84 THE OLD TESTAMENT

of the gods love, others hate. From early times,
however, the unfavorable deities have usually
occupied a subordinate place, so that in the Bab-
ylonian religion they are largely, but not en-
tirely, spirits rather than gods, and among the
Arabs they are the jinns. Mercy and grace,
leading to forgiveness, are sought by the sup-
pliants in the Babylonian prayers. But, like
other features of the religion, in the general
Semitic conception the love and mercy lack an
ethical basis; they are rather like ordinary hu-
man love. The cause of an unfavorable attitude
of the deity is not certainly known; the princi-
ples upon which it can be removed are not defi-
nitely settled, although in general they are ritual
and magical rather than ethical; and the corre-
sponding principles upon which love and mercy
depend are obscure. Further, love and mercy
have always the local limitations.

PART III

MAN

SIN

THERE are, of course, certain questions in
relation to man that precede the question
of sin. These are especially those that relate to
the creation, nature, and constitution of man. But
at this point there is very little material for com-
parison. The accounts in Genesis say that Yah-
weh created man. The principal creation tablet
of the Babylonians already referred to, enuma
elish, says that Marduk of Babylon created man.
The fragment from Eridu attributes this to Mar-
duk of Eridu, originally distinct from Marduk of
Babylon. The small fragment in which Ashur ap-
pears as the creator does not mention the creation
of man. This, however, is doubtless due to its
fragmentary condition. It is, therefore, the teach-
ing of the Babylonians as of the Old Testament
that man originated by divine creation, although
in the separate Babylonian recensions the act is
assigned to various gods. There is no clear Sem-
itic teaching, beyond this, concerning the nature

88 THE OLD TESTAMENT

and constitution of man which can be compared
with the Old Testament statements.

There can be little question that the other Sem-
itic religions agree with the Old Testament in
holding to the universality of sin, in some sense of
the term. This is seen from the universality of
sacrifice, some forms of which, as will be seen,
presuppose sin. It is seen more clearly, in the
Babylonian religion, from the so-called peniten-
tial psalms, prayers, etc., in which there is confes-
sion of sin. The Old Testament account of the
fall of man is undoubtedly intended to teach the
origin of human sin with the first man. No
parallel to this Old Testament account has been
found elsewhere, the supposed Babylonian paral-
lel, consisting simply of a picture, is of uncertain
meaning, and it is by no means clear that it has
any such reference.

From a comparison of the different religions,
as will be seen more fully later, it seems reason-
ably certain that the early conception of sin
among the Semites was the doing of that which
is displeasing to the gods. But in this early con-
ception, further, the gods cared only for human
action so far as it directly concerned them;
hence sin consisted in transgression of the regu-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 89

lations in connection with the sacrifices or other
features of worship. It thus had to do with ritual
acts, and not with one's relation to his fellow-
man. Such a conception of sin is not only in
harmony with the early ideas concerning the
gods, as just noted, but is also indicated as the
common-Semitic idea by the fact that it is the
prominent element in the ideas of sin among the
Semitic nations generally, except among the He-
brews, and their religion has traces of such a con-
ception. The early Semitic conception of sin,
then, had no ethical character. It was also with-
out fixed principles, it depended simply upon the
will of the gods, and that will, being non-ethical,
was capricious; besides, an act might be dis-
pleasing to one god that was pleasing to another.

There was but one infallible indication of sin
in this early conception, its results. Sin brings
punishment without fail. Sickness, disaster, mis-
fortune, death, all are simply the results of sin.
These, however, do not show what is wrong, but
only that some sin has been committed. It is
necessarily uncertain what the sin is in any par-
ticular case.

If such is the early Semitic conception, how far
has it been retained and how far modified among

90 THE OLD TESTAMENT

the several nations? The most definite informa-
tion available is concerning the Babylonians, but
certain indications among the other nations point
also to the conclusion that this early conception
has been retained without any great modification
among all the nations except the Hebrews.

Among the Babylonians the prevailing concep-
tion is simply that which has been indicated ; sin is
of a ritual nature. There are among this people
many tablets dealing with religious subjects in
which the matter of sin is treated. These are ar-
ranged in several series. In most of the tablets,
it is stated by Morgenstern,^ it is only ritual sin
that is recognized ; in but one series, called Shur-
pu, are ethical acts included with ritual, although
without distinction between them. This is in har-
mony with the prevailing non-ethical conception
of the divine character among the Babylonians,
with some traces of ethical elements.

The question may arise in what way moral
offenses came to be included, even to a slight ex-
tent, with the ritual. It is obvious that, on the
ritual conception, the gods were considered to be
selfish: if they themselves were treated with due
honor they were not concerned about the treat-

^ " The Doctrine of Sin in the Babylonian Religion," p. 2.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS QI

ment of one man by another. The rise of any
concern of this kind probably came along the line
of the relation of the god to the tribe; he was
physically connected with the tribe. Hence, he was
interested for the general welfare of the tribe, and
at first for particular individuals simply in rela-
tion to the whole. But with the growth of indi-
vidualism, especially arising from change of cus-
toms, advance in civilization, and increase of
individual possessions, came inevitably some con-
ception of the care of the god for individuals,
even when not directly connected with the gen-
eral tribal welfare. When, under these circum-
stances, one individual appealed to the god for
redress of an injury done by another, it would be
necessary for the god, in their conception, to pay
some attention to this appeal, and consequently
to punish the offender against his fellow-man,
i. e., his fellow-tribesman. Thus was developed
some conception of sin toward one's fellow-man,
but only within the tribe : such a thing as sin to-
ward those outside the tribe or nation was un-
known.

Among the Babylonians it was thought that all
punishment for sin was inflicted directly by de-
mons. At first these were merely the instruments

92 THE OLD TESTAMENT

of the greater gods, the real gods. But after a
time the demons were considered to work to a
large extent independently, in subordination to
the gods, yet usually without direct connection
with them. The demons hated men and took de-
light in inflicting misfortune on them. The gods
were sufficiently powerful to prevent the demons
from injuring one, yet often they were rather in-
different than otherwise, which attitude gave the
demons their opportunity. In sickness the de-
mons were considered to be actually present in
the body; hence sickness itself made one unclean,
and was therefore not only the result of sin but
itself a sin. All dealings with the demons were
naturally on a purely ritual basis.

The early teaching that all misfortune is the
result of sin was thus retained in the Babylonian
conception. The connection was apparently often
thought of as indirect rather than direct. The in-
dividual had not been sufficiently zealous in keep-
ing the favorable attention of the greater gods so
that they would ward off the attacks of the de-
mons. The idea of the activity of the demons was
further extended, also, in connection with the
witches. These were persons through whom the
demons especially worked to the injury of others.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 93

Yet these were often considered really to have
control of the activity of the demons. In that
case, then, the individual who suffered from the
activity of the witches was injured directly by
reason of human hostility, that of the witch.
Possibly here is to be found some not unnatural
inconsistency in the representation, i. e., if suf-
fering comes as a result of human hostility it
does not seem that sin has directly to do with it.
Yet the prominent idea apparently was that some
remissness in relation to the gods, i. e., some sin,
had caused them so far to relax their vigilance as
to give the witches an opportunity for the exercise
of their arts.

Among the other Semitic nations, aside from
the Babylonians and the Hebrews, indications that
the view of sin is in general the early one here
stated come chiefly from the prominence of sac-
rifice and ritual, and from the absence of positive
statements to show any real prevalence of an ethic-
al conception. This is a summary of the state of
the case among the Arabs before Muhammad, the
Southern Arabs, the Arameans, and the Phoeni-
cians. W. Robertson Smith, evidently basing his
view chiefly upon Arabic customs, speaks of " a
very primitive type of religion, in which the sense

94 THE OLD TESTAMENT

of sin, in any proper sense of the word, did not
exist at all, and the whole object of ritual was to
maintain the bond of physical holiness that kept
the religious community together." ^ Among the
Arabs before Muhammad, according to Wellhau-
sen, the ordinary worship was simply ritual, and
the idea of sin was ritual. There was some de-
velopment of tribal duties, but this was imperfect,
while there were no duties to any man outside the
tribe. Further, this idea of morality within the
tribe, according to Wellhausen, arose from the
sense of relationship to the tribe and not from the
religion; although this, it seems to the present
writer, was indirectly religious, because of the
conception of the physical connection of the god
with the tribe. There was, however, as a late
development, a worship of Allah which had little
connection with the cult, in which there was a
broader development of the ethical idea.^ Hence,
it would seem that the Arabic conception was
very similar to the Babylonian, the early idea of
sin was simply ritual, but ultimately acts in the
sphere of morals were also included, although not
so as to supersede the other conception.

^ " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 401.

2 " Reste Arabischen Heidentums," 2d ed., passim, especially p.
219 seq.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 95

We come to a consideration of the Old Testa-
ment teaching. It is of course generally recog-
nized that the Old Testament regards as sins acts
both in the moral and in the ceremonial sphere.
The actual relation between the two conceptions,
however, is much disputed. In view of what has
already been presented, it seems clear that the
Old Testament treatment of ceremonial acts as
sins is based upon the common-Semitic view al-
ready presented, and is in fact substantially the
same, although with differences in detail. The
underlying principle, so far as these acts are con-
cerned, is the one already enunciated: sin is rit-
ual ; any variation from the prescribed ceremonies
is sin. This goes so far that in the Old Testa-
ment uncleanness is treated as sin, even when it
comes from natural causes, as from an accidental
occurrence, or disease, or childbirth. Thus un-
cleanness resulting from unavoidable contact of
a Nazirite with a dead body is called sin (Num.
6 : 9-11), " If any man die very suddenly beside
him, and he defile the head of his separation ; then
he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing,
on the seventh day shall he shave it. And on the
eighth day he shall bring two turtle doves, or two
young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the

96 THE OLD TESTAMENT

tent of meeting ; and the priest shall offer one for
a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering,
and make atonement for him, for that he sinned
by reason of the dead, and shall hallow his head
that same day." A sin offering is also prescribed
in the graver cases of uncleanness, for a leper
who has been cleansed (Lev. 14 : 19), a man
who has an issue (Lev. 15 : 15), and a woman
after childbirth (Lev. 12 : 6, 8), as well as for
the uncleanness of a Nazirite (Num. 6 : 11),
above mentioned. Apparently similar is the sin
offering for the Nazirite after the completion
of the time of his vow (Num. 6 : 14). Prob-
ably passages such as Num. 19 : 13, 20, where
it is said that the unclean person who will not
purify himself shall be cut off from the assembly,
should not be included directly here, since the
conception probably is that the punishment was
not so much for the uncleanness as for the per-
sistent disobedience. It is doubtless a result of
this earlier conception that moral 'n is often
spoken of as uncleanness, even by the prophets,
as in Isa. i : 16; 6 : 5; Jer. 33 : 8; Lam. 4 :
I4f. This form of expression probably has come
to be used because the earlier conception of sin
as ritual, i. e., as uncleanness, was broadened so

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 97

as to embrace also moral sins, which then were in-
cluded under the term uncleanness or defilement.
As the prophets use the language, however, it
probably does not represent the distinctly pro-
phetic view, but rather the employment of lan-
guage in common use.

Except in the distinctly ritual portions, how-
ever, the Old Testament for the most part pre-
sents another view. In harmony with the lofty
ethical character of Yahweh, taught in the Old
Testament, it is inevitable that there should be
an ethical view of sin. It is true, of course, that
sin is that which is opposed to the will of Yah-
weh. But this will is regarded as a comprehen-
sive thing, it embraces all one's relations with his
fellow-men, as well as directly with Yahweh.
In the teaching of prophets, psalmists, and wis-
dom writers, therefore, the emphasis is laid upon
sins of an ethical nature, injustice, oppression,
robbery, murder, etc. And when the direct rela-
tion to Yahweh is in mind, the thought is usually
not of the details of the ritual, but of the general
question of loyalty to Yahweh or rejection of
him.

In brief, then, we find in the Old Testament a
conception that sin is of a ritual nature, which is

98 THE OLD TESTAMENT

esentially the same as the early common-Semitic
conception. This is found chiefly in the Levitical
legislation. There are also indications in the
Old Testament of an advance from this view to
the one found among the Babylonians, that sin,
of a ritual nature, may include moral transgres-
sions as well. A further step is taken, however,
in which the Old Testament teaching is distinct-
ive : sin is recognized as in principle of an ethical
nature, and hence of a fixed character, embra-
cing all possible relations, in harmony with the
teaching concerning Yahweh as a God of an
ethical character, who cares for all human ac-
tivities and relations.

SALVATION THROUGH SACRIFICE

REDEMPTION, as ordinarily used, means
deliverance from sin and its effects : salva-
tion includes this and also the positive blessings
that flow from such deliverance. Practically,
then, salvation, speaking in common-Semitic
terms, means the answer to the question, In what
ways can man, who is a sinner, so far remove the
effects of sin in relation to the gods that he can
obtain and keep their favor ? Various answers to
this question are found among the Semites; the
one common answer is through sacrifice, which
will first be considered.

The present discussion is limited to this life,
as it is that which Is chiefly considered both In the
Old Testament and in the literature of the other
Semitic nations. The conception of the future
life will be treated by Itself.

It will be necessary to consider first certain gen-
eral features of Semitic sacrifices; after that the
significance will be discussed.

lOO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Place and time of sacriUces. In the earlier Old
Testament usage sacrifice was offered in many
places. Later the worship was centralized, and sac-
rifices were required to be offered at one place —
the temple at Jerusalem. In the common-Semitic
usage there is a measure of centralization of wor-
ship, but nothing so definite as in this later Old
Testament regulation. Of course, in any polythe-
istic system there is worship in many places, to
different gods. Regularly, however, there was a
central point for the worship of each god, the tem-
ple at the city where its worship was especially lo-
calized. But, in general, any god could also be
worshiped in other localities. In Babylonia and
Assyria the goddess Ishtar was worshiped with al-
most equal honor at several cities, although she be-
came thus practically separated into distinct deities.
Further, certain tendencies, especially the monar-
chical, led in Babylonia and Assyria to the build-
ing of temples and altars to many other deities
around those of the chief god of a prominent city,
their subordination being indicated in this way,
or to the placing of other images in the temple of
the special god of the city. Thus there were no
less than thirteen sacred edifices in Lagash used
for the worship of as many gods, and in the old

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS lOI

temple in the city of Ashur approximately twenty
deities were worshiped/

It is usually thought that centralization of wor-
ship among the Hebrews resulted from practical
considerations, by reason of the abuses resulting
from worship at the " high places." While this
may have had some force, it seems evident that
centralization was in harmony with the early idea
of sacrifice. In this early idea, as we shall see,
sacrifice was a clan matter, conducted usually by
the whole clan, and doubtless ordinarily at the
same place. This communal idea was preserved
to a considerable extent in the peace offering, but
much less in the burnt offering. Yet, in general,
the relation to the community was preserved
among the Hebrews more than among the other
nations : the sacrifice always had some reference
to the national life. Hence, when the unity of the
whole nation became prominent, it was natural
that this communal side of the worship should be
emphasized by its centralization.

Concerning the time and circumstances of
sacrifice, little difference is to be observed. In all
the Semitic nations sacrifice was both national
and individual : the relation between these differ-

^ Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," pp. 635, 637.

102 THE OLD TESTAMENT

eiit forms will be considered in connection with
their significance. National sacrifices were of-
fered on any important occasion, such as a feast
or special day of any kind. In Babylonia there
was daily sacrifice as well as in Israel. This is
well established for the cities of Borsippa, Sippar,
Kutha, and Nineveh, and probably was practised
elsewhere also.^ Individual sacrifices could evi-
dently be offered at any convenient occasion
among all the nations.

In all the nations priests have a prominent part.
They are called by the same name among the He-
brews, Arabs, and Phoenicians. Among the Min-
ceans the priests and priestesses are called i^)b and
n«i!5, which may be connected with the Hebrew
')b.^ Among the Arabs alone they have nothing
directly to do with the sacrifices, which are of-
fered by the one who brings them. This is doubt-
less connected with the fact that in Arabia the
offering is the pouring out of the blood on the
sacred stone, so that it is in reality a part of the
act of slaughtering. There the priest was the
guardian of the holy place and the one who gave
oracles, especially by lot. The priesthood was

^ Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p, 667.
2 Hommel, " Sud-arabische Chrestomathie," p. 127.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS IO3

hereditary. In all the other Semitic nations the
offering was ordinarily performed by the priest,
with some exceptions in the early Old Testament
usage. Little information beyond that just
stated is at hand in reference to the Carthaginian
priests. In the Old Testament the priesthood was
hereditary, in Babylonia at any rate largely so.
The two nations had similar regulations concern-
ing the physical perfection of the priests. The
chief difference between the Babylonians and the
Hebrews was in the wider range of priestly activi-
ties among the former people. It was the priests
who had charge of incantations and omens, as
well as sacrifice, practices which are forbidden in
the Old Testament. Those in Babylonia whose
work was most like that of the Old Testament
prophets were there a branch of the priesthood.
In Babylonia the king was regarded as in some
sense the head of the priests,^ as he never was
among the Hebrews. Presumably this means that
the early prominence of the priests was such that
it was from priestly families that the kings came.
Yet this preeminence became nominal, the king
himself needing the intercession of the priests.^

* Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 655f.
' Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 692.

I04 THE OLD TESTAMENT

The power of the priests was very great in Bab-
ylonia. This doubtless resulted from the great
prominence of ritual which only the priests knew
how to perform, and partly from the related
reason that the priests were distinctly the edu-
cated class.

The materials used in sacrifice have a gen-
eral similarity among all the nations, although
with some variations. Ordinarily the animals
sacrificed are clean domestic animals, although
not all of these are allowed to be used. The sac-
rificial animals among the Hebrews were cattle,
sheep, goats, turtle-doves, and pigeons. Among
the Phoenicians, at least at Carthage and vicinity,
they were cattle, sheep, goats, domestic birds, deer
(y«), young (?) deer (Vk any), wild birds (?)
(ya), and game (nv).^ Among the Babylonians
the sacrificial animals included cattle, sheep, goats,
gazelles, fish, and birds.^ The favorite animal sac-
rifice, however, and the one especially mentioned
in the sacrificial regulations which have been
found, was the lamb. The sacrificial animals of
the Arabs were camels, sheep, and cattle.^ Camels
were also eaten by the Arabs, although neither

1 Marseilles Tablet, CIS, I, 165.

^ See especially inscription of Gudea, KB, III, pp. 60-65,

* Wellhausen, " Reste arabischen Hexdentums," 26. ed., p, 115.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I05

eaten nor sacrificed by the Hebrews. Gazelles
were also sacrificed by the Arabs, although re-
garded as an imperfect substitute for a sheep.

Among all the Semitic nations there were
bloodless offerings as well. The materials for
these in the Old Testament were meal, oil, in-
cense, and wine, together with salt. In Babylonia,
they were honey, butter — these two usually mixed
— milk, dates, figs, oil, salt, incense, wine of all
kinds, water, and perhaps other things.^ Among
the Arabs the principal materials were meal and
milk : incense was not used, and oil and wine but
rarely.^ Among the Phoenicians the materials
were meal, fruit, oil, incense, milk, and fat.^

The general principle seems to have been the
same among all the Semitic nations, covering all
the sacrifices : the sacrifices were taken from the
ordinary food of the people, but probably did not
in any case include all articles of ordinary food.
There may have been various reasons for the
omission of specific articles. Milk is omitted
from the Hebrew list alone. Fat is included in
the minha by the Phoenicians, while in the Old
Testament the fat of the intestines is always a

1 KAT, 3d ed., p. 599^-

2 Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentiims," 2d ed., p. 114;
W. Robertson Smith, " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 220.

3 CIS, I, i65f.

I06 THE OLD TESTAMENT

part of a bloody offering, and is burned upon the
altar, so that its use is forbidden as food/ Spe-
cially notable is the use of honey in the Babylonian
ritual, which is expressly forbidden in the Old
Testament.^ This is perhaps an illustration of
another principle in the Old Testament regula-
tions, viz., the avoidance of some materials for
sacrifice used by the surrounding nations, possi-
bly to remove temptations to idolatry.

The diif event kinds of sacrifices. The division
of sacrifices according to their meaning needs
consideration at this point. The animal sacrifices
are doubtless earlier than the vegetable, and show
more characteristic differences of meaning, al-
though vegetable offerings may sometimes be
substituted for animal. In the Old Testament
there are two principal types of animal sacrifice,
the burnt offering (n^i;r) and the peace offering
(n^T. uh^, D'pbK^ n^.O- The other sacrifices of the
Old Testament are of minor importance in this
connection, and need not be discussed particularly
here. In the burnt offering practically the whole
animal was burnt upon the altar ; while the peace
offering was a sacrificial meal — most of the ani-
mal was eaten in a sacred meal by the offerer and

1 Lev. 3 : 17. 'Lev. 2:11.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS ID/

others associated with him. The apparent mean-
ing of the burnt offering was that of a gift to
God, but not an ordinary gift — a gift to secure in
some way the expiation of sin ; while the meaning
of the peace offering, apparently, was the fellow-
ship between men and God, and among men, the
worshipers.

These two types of sacrifice are found ordi-
narily among the Semitic nations. The usual sac-
rifice among the Arabs is of the nature of the
peace offering. The other form of sacrifice, the
burnt offering, is found in the case of human sac-
rifices, but it is doubtful whether it is found at
all in other cases. ^ Fire was only used with hu-
man sacrifices. The altar was a sacred stone
where the blood was applied. If any sacrifices
corresponding to the burnt offering are found,
aside from human sacrifices, the flesh was not
burned but left by the altar, and doubtless eaten
by wild beasts. There are, however, the two types
of Old Testament sacrifices, but the one corre-
sponding to the burnt offering is comparatively
uncommon. The inscriptions of the Southern
Arabs make little mention of sacrifices. There is
thought to be specific evidence of the existence of

^ W. Robertson Smith, " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., pp. 229,
386.

I08 THE OLD TESTAMENT

the peace offering with the name Db^, as in He-
brew/

It seems clear that the Phoenician Carthagin-
ians had the two kinds corresponding quite
closely to the Old Testament.^ The one corre-
sponding to the Old Testament burnt offering is
known as b'bD, clearly the Hebrew b')2, an infre-
quent term used instead of nbij; for the burnt
offering, meaning whole, holocaust. The one
probably corresponding to the Old Testament
peace offering is called r\yy^. Various conjec-
tures have been made concerning the etymological
significance of this word, but none that seem at
all conclusive. The disposition of the flesh corre-
sponds partially to that in the Old Testament, as
will be seen more fully later. In the VVd a por-
tion of the flesh by weight is assigned to the
priests; in the n;^iv certain specified members of
the body are given to the priests, and others to the
offerer. There is no express mention of fire in
these Phoenician inscriptions. It is clearly im-
plied, however, and there is frequent mention of
altars. It seems evident that in these sacrifices
the portions not expressly mentioned, or most of

1 Weber, "Arabian vor dem Islam," p. 2of; Jeremias, "Das alte
Testament ini Lichte des Alten Orients," 2d ed.. p. 433.

2 CIS. I, 165, 167.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS IO9

them, are burned. In that case all the h^bj was
burned except the portion specified for the priests,
while it was comparatively a small portion of the
n;;iv that was burned, as will be seen more fully.
This makes a general correspondence with the
Old Testament. There is also mention of ub^ b'bD.
It seems probable that d^k^ is Hebrew D^.i!?, but in
what way it is used here is doubtful, since n;^iv,
as has been indicated, seems to designate the
sacrifice of which d^:^ is used in Hebrew, and it
is uncertain in what way ubi^ can be connected
with b'bD. D^B^ Vb:D is evidently used as a distinct
variety of sacrifice along with the other two, but
it is apparently subordinate, since it does not ap-
pear in the more detailed statements. It is per-
haps a variety of the VbD. There is also mention
of two other forms of sacrifice, ^:£\if and nm,^ but
these are evidently subordinate and of very doubt-
ful meaning, the explanation of Langdon ^ being
by no means certain. Langdon takes another
word, n^iD in n^iob,^ as designating a holocaust.
He considers it the same as the Syriac word for
holocaust. Haupt* compares with this Syriac
word the Babylonian sacrificial term shumu, to

iCIS, I, i6s, 1. II. «JBL. XXIII. p. 86.
8JBL, XXIII, pp. 81, 89. *JBL, XIX, p. 60.

no THE OLD TESTAMENT

which he gives the meaning roasted meat. This
explanation of n'lD is suggestive, but the inscrip-
tion in which it is found is so exceedingly frag-
mentary that no definite conclusion can be reached
concerning it. The word n^i is found in Phoeni-
cian as a noun as well as a verb, but it has an al-
together general meaning, being applied even to
bloodless sacrifices.

In Babylonian and Assyrian the word zihu, the
equivalent of Hebrew n^r, is found only rarely,
and with a general meaning, as in Phoenician, in-
cluding bloodless offerings. The corresponding
verb has not been found. The word for animal
sacrifice is niqit. This was the original word for
libation J and still retains that meaning, but the sig-
nification has been broadened so that it is the
common word for animal sacrifice, especially a
sacrificial lamb. So far as appears there is only
one kind of animal sacrifice among the Assyrians
and Babylonians. This resembles the burnt of-
fering more than the peace offering. The offering
seems to be entirely given over to the god, al-
though the disposition of it is quite different from
the Old Testament regulations. Certain portions,
as will be seen more fully later, were regularly
presented to the god; and certain portions regu-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS III

larly belonged to the priests. It is not certain that
any portions were burned, but this seems to be
clearly presumable. In meaning, also, it is similar
to the burnt offering, its atoning efficacy is con-
spicuous, and it is often spoken of as a gift to
the god.

Concerning the early idea of Semitic sacrifice,
the relative age of the two types, and the develop-
ment of meaning in the case of each, there is much
difference of opinion. In the discussion of this
matter, special reference must necessarily be made
to the view of W. Robertson Smith,^ which is es-
sentially as follows, according to the understand-
ing of the present writer.

The early Semitic idea of sacrifice rested upon
a primitive conception of the relation of man to
deity. Sacrifice was a sacrificial meal, a clan
meal, shared by the god of the clan and the clan
itself, who were all bound together by physical
relationship. This was like a common meal
among men related : it strengthened the ties exist-
ing between the god and the clan. According to
the conception at that time, the food was actually
eaten by the god as well as by the men. The sac-
rificial animal was kindred to the clan and the god,

* " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., passim.

112 THE OLD TESTAMENT

i. e., it was a totem animal. Sacrifice was purely
a clan matter, not an individual matter.

The early form of sacrifice was thus a peace
offering: the other form of sacrifice, the burnt
offering, was developed from it through the com-
ing in of the idea that the sacrifice was a gift, and
through the feeling of the need of propitiating the
favor of the gods. Originally the sacrifice was a
joyous occasion, there was very little feeling of
guilt; the physical relationship of the god and his
worshipers made it unnecessary to do much by
way of propitiating him. The idea of a gift came
about probably through the growth of individual-
ism. In the early clan idea there was very little
individual ownership of property. But in course
of time, with increasing civilization and wealth,
individual ownership became common. Gifts to
the gods, especially of cereals, assumed a promi-
nent position. This naturally tended to the
thought that the animal sacrifices were also a gift.
The old totem idea also became weakened, so that
the early force of the sacrifice was less strongly
felt. The increase of civilization, and the disap-
pearance of the old idea of physical relationship
to the god, also tended to a cultivation of the
sense of guilt. From these various tendencies it

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS II3

came about that sacrifices were presented fre-
quently as individual gifts for special sins, or in
seeking special favors. It was still felt that the
victim was sacred, although the original reason
was lost or obscured. Then, as an explanation of
this sacredness, arose the conception that the vic-
tim was a substitute for a human being. With
this idea, the flesh was felt to be too sacred to
be eaten. Burning the sacrifice was then prac-
tised, simply as a means of disposing of the flesh
without danger to the worshiper, of which it was
dangerous to eat. This took place at first prob-
ably outside of the city rather than on the altar.
But the significance of the burning was forgotten,
and another explanation of it arose. The early
idea that the gods ate flesh like men gave place
to a somewhat more spiritual conception of them,
as a result of which it was felt that more ethereal-
ized food was appropriate to them, i. e., liquids
and vapor. The blood was at first shared be-
tween the god and the worshipers, ultimately it
was all given to the god. Hence arose a libation
of blood, and later of other liquids. The original
altar was a stone upon which the blood was
poured out. The burning came to be considered,
like the libation, a means of conveying ethereal-

114 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ized food to the gods, in this case in the form of
smoke; and then the burning was transferred to
the altar where Hquids had been offered.

But the peace offering did not remain entirely
unchanged. The chief change, however, was in
reference to the sacred character of the offering.
At first, as has been stated, this was felt to be
naturally sacred, because a totem animal. Later,
in the burnt offering, the sacredness was still felt,
but was differently explained. With the peace
offering, however, the emphasis was still laid upon
the sacrificial meal, and the sense of the sacred-
ness of the victim was largely lost, so that it could
still be eaten. Doubtless this diminution in sacred-
ness arose chiefly from the practical necessity
of eating the sacred animals for food. The sub-
stitutionary idea doubtless did not enter here, at
least not prominently. That is, in the original
sacrifice two things were prominent — a sacred
animal and a common meal ; and there was noth-
ing contradictory in these two factors. But with
the loss of the original conception, emphasis on
either one led to the obscuration of the other ele-
ment. Continued emphasis on the sacredness of
the animal led, as has been indicated, to burnt
offering; on the idea of the meal, to the peace

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS II5

offering, which retains in general the original
conception, but has lost the idea of the sacredness
of the victim to such an extent that it is still
considered safe to eat the flesh. The general
conception of the peace offering is thus fellow-
ship; of the burnt offering, a gift, with strong
and increasing emphasis upon the idea of atone-
ment for sin.

Such in brief is the view of W. Robertson
Smith. How far it can be accepted in all its de-
tails is a question. But to the present writer the
general view seems probably correct. It appar-
ently accounts for the facts better than any other
view. In particular, the early idea of sacrifice
and the development of the two types seem quite
in accordance with the habits of thought of primi-
tive peoples.

Two special forms of Old Testament sacrifices
which have not been mentioned should here be re-
ferred to: the n«Dn, sin offering, and the nm,
guilt offering. These are usually considered to
be, at least in prominent use, the latest and per-
haps most characteristic development of the Old
Testament sacrifices. Both in form and mean-
ing, however, they are really developments of the
burnt offering. They are very similar to each

Il6 THE OLD TESTAMENT

Other. The chief variation of both of them from
the ritual of the burnt offering is in the disposi-
tion of the body of the animal. In the case of
the sin offering the same portions are burned on
the altar as in the peace offering, while all the rest
of the carcass is burned without the city at the
dumping-place of the ashes. In the guilt offering
the portions burned on the altar are the same as in
the sin offering, but the rest all the priests eat
together in a holy place. In accordance with what
has been said concerning the development of the
burnt offering, it seems probable that the disposi-
tion in the case of the sin offering was the earlier
custom in the case of the burnt offering. In the
case of the guilt offering, there appears to be a
different development of the idea of the sacred-
ness of the offering : when it came to be regarded
as too sacred for a common meal, it was eaten
by the priests solemnly in a holy place, instead of
being burned. Both treatments, then, it would
seem, are really early features, although per-
haps becoming prominent late in Old Testament
history. Both emphasize the sacred character
of the offering, and thus make prominent the
idea of expiation, which they have in common
with the burnt offering. They are, then, to be

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 11/

regarded as really varieties of the burnt offering.

A subordinate form of sacrifice is the libation.
This is regularly an accompaniment of other of-
ferings. It was probably originally of blood, as
has already been suggested. There is no signifi-
cant difference among the various Semitic nations,
except that among the Arabs it was relatively
more important than with any other nation, it
being there, on account of the infrequency of fire
offerings, ordinarily the essential godward feature
of animal sacrifice. It was also very common
among the Assyrians and Babylonians.

The incense offering is also in general a subor-
dinate form. This doubtless arose from the same
general idea as that found in the later explanation
of the burning of sacrifices, viz., that food was
conveyed to the gods in an acceptable ethereal-
ized form in this way. Incense offering is found
among all the Semitic nations, except the Arabs ;
it is found among the Southern Arabs. Its ab-
sence among the Arabs has been considered
strange. Doubtless, however, in accordance with
what has just been said, it is to be connected with
the fact that fire was not ordinarily used in their
sacrifices. In Babylonia and Assyria, on the
other hand, this form of offering was very, com-

Il8 THE OLD TESTAMENT

mon, apparently the most prominent feature of
the sacrifices.

The bloodless offerings, or meal offerings, may
be briefly treated here. These are found among
all the Semitic nations. In the Old Testament they
consist essentially, in the most common form, of
meal and oil mingled. These elements are found
in general among the other nations, with some
additions. It should be noted that these offer-
ings are not sacrifices in the same sense as the
animal sacrifices, they are simply, in their essence,
a form of tribute ; the common Hebrew word for
them, nn^r?, means a gift. Their treatment is in
harmony with this idea of tribute. The act of the
offerer is simply to bring them: they are wholly
given over to God — a part is burned on the altar,
the rest belongs to the priests as a whole, not
to the ministering priest alone. They probably
came originally from the first-fruits. But they did
not remain entirely unaffected by the influence of
the animal sacrifices. To a certain extent they
might be substituted for animal sacrifices by the
poor. This was the case with the burnt offering
and sin offering; it is not mentioned in the case
of the guilt offering, although that would be ex-
pected from the analogy of the sin offering. The

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS II9

substitution did not take place in the case of the
peace offering, evidently because the fundamental
ideas of the two were entirely at variance. When
substituted, however, these bloodless offerings
have no independent significance of their own, but
take that of the sacrifice for which they are a sub-
stitute.

The showbread — twelve loaves placed before
Yahweh and renewed every week — are a form of
sacrifice. They have their parallel in the similar
custom of the Babylonians and Assyrians of pla-
cing loaves before the gods when sacrificing.
These loaves were twelve in number or a multiple
of twelve, often three times twelve.^ These loaves
in the Old Testament are called d^j3 ur}), bread of
face; whether the Babylonian are called by the
corresponding term akal panu is not entirely cer-
tain.'^

Prominent details of the regulations. The Old
Testament sacrifice of cattle, sheep, or goat is
usually a male. This is demanded in the case of
the burnt offering and the guilt offering, and also
in the case of the sin offering for priest, ruler, or
the whole people. For the sin offering for an or-

1 Zimmern, " Beitrage sur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion,'

2 See Zimmern, KAT, 3d ed., p. 600.

p. _9Sf.

I20 THE OLD TESTAMENT

dinary individual a female is required, while for
the peace offering it may be male or female. It
can hardly be doubted that the male is considered
superior, and so is insisted upon in general when
the special sanctity of the victim is in mind. This
accounts for the relaxation of the regulation in the
case of the peace offering, but the isolated excep-
tion in the sin offering is anomalous. Among the
Babylonians, as well, the animal was usually a
male, although females were also used.^ No
specific regulation that the sacrifice shall be a male
is to be found in the other religions, although
among the sacrificial animals specified on the Mar-
seilles tablet are c]bK, ox, and by, ram.

The Old Testament generally provides that the
animal for sacrifice shall be without blemish, D'p:i.
The same provision is found in the Babylonian
regulations, the corresponding word being shal-
mii.^ This does not seem to be an express regu-
lation in the material available among the other
nations.

The Babylonian, as well as the Old Testament,
regulations provide that the sacrifice shall be sea-
soned with salt.^

1 Jeremias, " Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients,"
2d ed., p. 429.

* Zimmern, KAT, 3d ed., p. 598.

* Zimmern. KAT. 3d ed.. p. 598.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 121

In the Old Testament the blood is very promi-
nent, because it is regarded as the life. This ap-
pears clearly in such passages as Lev. 17 : 11:
" For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I
have given it to you upon the altar to make atone-
ment for your souls : for it is the blood that ma-
keth atonement by reason of the life." The blood
has a conspicuous place in the Old Testament
ritual of the sacrifices. In the burnt offering,
peace offering, and guilt offering, it is sprinkled
round about upon the altar of burnt offering, ex-
cept that in the case of birds in the burnt offer-
ing it is drained out upon the side of the altar.
In the case of the sin offering for a priest or for
the whole people, the blood is to be sprinkled
seven times before Yahweh before the veil of the
sanctuary, then some put upon the horns of the
altar of incense, and the rest poured out at the
base of the altar of burnt offering. The blood of
a sin offering for a ruler or for an ordinary per-
son is to be treated in the same way, except that
the first part, the sprinkling, is omitted. In the
case of a bird as a sin offering for an ordinary
person, however, it is provided that the priest
shall sprinkle of the blood upon the side of the
altar of burnt offering, and drain out the re-

122 THE OLD TESTAMENT

mainder at the base of the altar. In Arabia the
treatment of the blood was the sacrifice, as has al-
ready been indicated. There it was poured out
upon the sacred stone which formed the altar.
There is no express mention of blood in the Car-
thaginian regulations. In Babylonia the blood
is evidently of very minor significance : it has
been found mentioned in only two passages.^
Among the Canaanites it is thought that sacrifi-
cial blood has been found on certain pillars.^

In the Old Testament regulations for the burnt
offering all the animal except the skin is to be
burned on the altar: the skin goes to the priest.
In the sacrifice of a bird, however, the crop and
feathers are thrown aside and not burned. In
the case of the sin offering, all the intestinal fat
and the kidneys, and also the fat tail of a lamb,
are burned on the altar; and all the rest of the
body is burned outside the city, where the ashes
are poured out. In the guilt offering, the por-
tion burned is the same as with the sin offer-
ing, while the flesh is eaten by all the priests in a
holy place. In the case of the peace offering, the
portion burned is the same as with the sin offer-

iSee KAT, 3d ed., p. S99.

sjeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients,"
2d ed., p. 317.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 23

ing, the breast and the right shoulder are, in P,
the portion of the priests, while all the rest of the
flesh is used for a sacrificial meal by the offerer
and others.

Among the Arabs, the burnt offering is per-
haps represented only by the human sacrifices;
there the victim is burned entire. In their ordi-
nary sacrifices, corresponding to the peace offer-
ing, the flesh, without specially excluding the fat,
is eaten as a sacrificial meal. Among the Car-
thaginians, in the Marseilles tablet, the priests
receive a fee of money, varying according to the
value of the animal — the same for any kind of
sacrifice. Besides this, in the b'hD, corresponding
to the burnt offering, the priests receive a certain
weight of flesh of the larger animals, three hun-
dred shekels weight for an ox, and one hundred
and fifty for a calf or deer. The rest was pre-
sumably burned. In the case of the nj^iv, cor-
responding to the peace offering, the priests re-
ceive certain portions called rr^vp and nbr, whose
meaning is uncertain. The skin, the oaSiy, mean-
ing uncertain, the feet, and the rest of the flesh go
to the offerer. In another inscription,^ the details
of the regulations vary considerably.

iCIS, I, 167.

124 THE OLD TESTAMENT

In the Babylonian regulations it is frequently
specified that the following portions of the animal
are to be given to the god : iniittu, right shoulder
or right thigh; hinsa, loins; shume, probably
roasted flesh; and silqu, probably boiled flesh.
The portions that go to the priest are not usu-
ally mentioned. In the inscription of Nabuapalid-
din/ however, they are given as follows : siinu,
loins; mashku, hide; arkatu, rump; hiiane, ten-
dons ; mishil karshi, half of the abdominal viscera ;
mishit qirbij half of the thoracic viscera ; two qur-
sinnu, legs; me seri, a pot of broth.^

In the Old Testament regulations it is generally
specified that the offerer is to lay his hand upon
the head of the victim, and to slay it. Neither of
these regulations, however, is given with the guilt
offering; while with the sin offering for the whole
people it is the elders of the congregation who lay
on their hands, and it is not specified who kills the
victim. The Babylonian regulations give no di-
rections concerning the slaying, but in one in-
scription it is specified that the offerer shall hold
the sheep that is sacrificed.^

The meaning of the sacrifices. The treatment

I Col. V, 11. 9-1 8, KB, III, I, p. i8of.
« See Haupt, JBL, XIX, p. 6o.

• Zimmern, " Beitrage sur Kenntnis der Bahylonischen Religion,'*
a, 11., 74, 155, pp. loi, 107.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 25

of external features thus far shows that the two
principal Old Testament sacrifices are found for
the most part among the other Semitic nations,
and that there are very many resemblances in de-
tails. It can hardly be doubted that there is great
similarity in the meaning as well. The early mean-
ing as well as form was doubtless the same in all
Semitic sacrifices, as has been seen. But changes
from the original form and meaning evidently
took place previous to the branching off of any of
the Semitic nations from the common stock. Es-
pecially the development of the burnt offering
from the original peace offering, together with
some changes in the latter, were clearly antece-
dent to the separation. Hence all this precedes
the distinctive development of any of these na-
tions. In the long course of the development of
individual nations, however, it seems inevitable
that the meaning as well as form has changed con-
siderably. These changes largely depended upon
the extent to which the earlier physical concep-
tion of the gods had disappeared. It was no doubt
modified somewhat among all the nations. This is
seen, e. g., in the general substitution of liquids and
smoke for flesh as the sacrificial food of the gods.
Inasmuch as the physical nature of the gods was

126 THE OLD TESTAMENT

still accepted, however, to a certain extent by all
the Semitic nations, aside from the Hebrews, it
seems evident that a physical conception of sacri-
fice must have continued to prevail among all, un-
less the Hebrews are an exception. That is, the
sacrifices were still considered to be the food of
the gods, and their meaning was based upon that
idea. The general meaning, then, among these
nations, of the two types of sacrifices would be
that already indicated — that the peace offering ex-
presses and promotes fellowship already existing
with the gods, the burnt ofifering secures their
favor which has been more or less interrupted by
sin. There is really nothing more definite than
this in the teachings of these nations. The Bab-
ylonians evidently gave to the sacrifice a certain
magical efficacy, in accordance with the physical
conception, as the sacrificial ritual was a part of
the ritual of incantation.^

To determine the Old Testament meaning of
the sacrifices, it is necessary to keep in mind their
history and original significance. Perhaps the
first question is whether the physical conception of
the effect of sacrifice remains at all in the Old

^ See especially Zimmern, " Beitr'dge sur Kenntnis der Babyloni-
schen Religion," passim.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 12/

Testament. There is language used which seems
to have that meaning. Not infrequently the sac-
rifices are called the ** bread of God " (o^riSx onS).
It is often said, as in Gen. 8 : 21 : " And Yahweh
smelled the sweet savor." In Ps. 50 : I2f Yah-
weh refers to sacrifices in these words : " If I were
hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is
mine and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh
of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" verses
which are couched in physical language, yet which
repudiate the thought of sacrifices as the food of
Yahweh. In the general Old Testament repre-
sentation, however, as has been seen, Yahweh is
distinctly spiritual; therefore, it is hardly possi-
ble to understand these phrases as conveying a
real physical meaning. Hence these expressions
can naturally be regarded as partly a preserva-
tion of the phraseology of an earlier time: this
seems to be especially true of language like the
" bread of God." Partly also, doubtless, they are
to be regarded as anthropomorphism which is in-
separable from any representation of God, and
which would be suggested by the nature of sacri-
fice.

If, however, the physical conception of the
sacrifices has been lost among the Hebrews, what

128 THE OLD TESTAMENT

is the meaning which they retain ? It is probable
that the general meaning has been retained. That
is, the peace offering expresses and promotes fel-
lowship with Yahweh; the burnt offering is a gift
by which his favor is obtained, which had been
lost by sin. The peace offering differs but very
slightly from the corresponding sacrifices among
the Arabs and Carthaginians. The burnt offer-
ing, also, has the same general meaning as the
corresponding sacrifice among the Arabs, Cartha-
ginians, and Babylonians. If there is any mate-
rial difference it is in a greater emphasis in the
Old Testament upon the expiation of sin. Two
things are sometimes thought to indicate this.
One is the existence of the sin offering and guilt
offering, which are thought to be a late develop-
ment, carrying the idea of expiation for sin to a
higher point than the burnt offering. But the
details of the ritual of these two offerings, as al-
ready indicated, in their variation from the burnt
offering, present features that are early rather
than late. Hence, whatever the time of their his-
torical appearance, they are not to be regarded as
developments from the burnt offering, and thus
a higher form of that; but rather as collateral
variations in the general development of the burnt-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 29

offering type of sacrifice, and hence of no greater
significance, so far as the expiation of sin is con-
cerned, than the burnt offering itself. The other
thing is the relatively great importance of the
blood in the Old Testament ritual, which has
already been noted in general. Expiation of sins
is specifically assigned to the blood, as in Lev.
17 : 11:'' For the life of the flesh is in the blood ;
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
atonement for your souls : for it is the blood that
maketh atonement by reason of the life." Yet the
treatment of the blood v^as the same in the peace
offering and the burnt offering, v^hile it is only in
a very general way, in connection with other sac-
rifices, that atonement is attributed to the peace
offering, not when it is treated specifically by it-
self. It seems evident that the blood is not
thought of as an isolated matter entirely, but
rather that the type of sacrifice is thought of as a
whole, although its atoning ef^cacy is due to the
blood. It is doubtful, therefore, if the emphasis
upon the blood is to be regarded as indicating a
materially greater emphasis upon the expiation of
sin than is to be found elsewhere. It seems more
probable that the expiation, which in the other
Semitic religions is attributed in general to the

130 THE OLD TESTAMENT

life, is here specially connected with the blood, as
the seat of life.

The expiation of sin is regularly expressed in
the Old Testament by the word nas. This word
is used several times of the burnt offering, al-
though more frequently of the sin offering and
guilt offering. This word -)f3 means in some
way to make atonement for sin. Besides its
use in the ritual portions of the Old Testament in
connection with sacrifice, it is used in the non-
ritual portions with no relation to them, as will be
seen. In the ritual use, the priest is usually the
subject of the verb, and it is followed by a preposi-
tion governing ordinarily the person affected,
while the sacrifices are spoken of as the means.
Thus it is said that the officiating priest makes
atonement for some one by means of sacrifice.
The sins for which atonement is made are also
sometimes mentioned. This word is used, with
the same general meaning as in Hebrew, in Bab-
ylonian, Aramaic, and Arabic, all in the intensive
stem. There are two prevalent views concerning
the original meaning of the word. One is that
it was to cover, hide, which is the meaning of the
Arabic w^ord in the simple stem. The other view
is that it was to zvash azvay, which is the meaning

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I3I

of the Syriac word in the simple stem, and is also
found as a meaning of the Babylonian/ The
occurrence of the latter meaning in the two lan-
guages, Babylonian and Syriac, gives a presump-
tion in favor of that as the original meaning of
the root. This meaning also makes it easier to
think of some tangible idea as in mind in the use
of the word, and to trace the development of
thought, and is probably to be accepted. Mention
should also be made, however, of the view often
held that n?3 is to be regarded as a denominative
from n?3, ransom.^ This does not take into ac-
count sufficiently the Babylonian usage, and in
general seems less in accord with primitive ideas
than the view here presented. The view of
Schrank ^ that the early meaning of the Babylo-
nian word was of a medical nature, to besmear
("bestreichen "), seems based upon no sufficient
evidence, although there may be a distinct root
having some such meaning. The origin of the
usage before us, then, on the view accepted, was in
the thought of washing away ritual uncleanness,
which was done at first by water in the purifica-

1 See KAT, 3d ed., p. 601; Morgenstern, "The Doctrine of Sin in
the Babylonian Religion," p, 44.

2 As, e. g., in Siegfried und Stade, Hebraisches Worterhuch; H. P.
Smith, AJTh, X, p. 412; J. M. P. ^mith, "Biblical World," XXXI,
p. 26 seq.

^" Babylonische Sithnriten." p. 81 seq.

132 THE OLD TESTAMENT

tion ceremonies; and then the appHcatlon was
broadened to include any ceremony for ritual
purification. This is the meaning which the word
has regularly in the Babylonian ritual tablets, to
wash away ceremonial uncleanness. In the Old
Testament ritual use, also, the meaning is sub-
stantially the same. In these passages sin is
thought of as of a ritual nature, and it is the re-
moval of sin as uncleanness that is in mind. Hence,
in the use before us, in connection with sacrifices,
the word has a ritual significance; it denotes the
removal of ritual sin, regarded as uncleanness.

It is sometimes thought that the Hebrew 193,
at least in its ritual use, has been borrowed from
the Babylonian kuppuru. Thus Zimmern speaks
of " dieses im babylonischen Silhneritual als ter-
minus technictis verwendte kuppuru'* and says
" Weiter aber ist sehr wahrscheinlich, das hebr.
'^^2, wenigstens als speciHsch kultustechnischer
Ausdruck in der Bed. ' siihnen^ nichf genuin he-
brdisch ist, sondern erst auf Grund des babylon-
ischen kidtustechnischen Gebrauches von kuppuru
in Aufnahine gekommen ist." ^ But this is improb-
able. There seems no reason to separate materially
between the ritual and non-ritual meanings of

1 KAT, 3d ed., p. 6oif.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 33

133, and there is no question that the word, at
least in the non-ritual use, was employed before
the Babylonian exile, at which time the borrow-
ing could most naturally take place.

Is it a Semitic teaching that the victim in sac-
rifice is a substitute for a human being, the guilty
party? The most definite statement of this idea
is found among the Babylonians. Thus it is
said,^ '' The lamb, the object of exchange for a
man, the lamb he [the priest] gives for his life.
The head of the lamb he gives for the head of
the man, the neck of the lamb he gives for the
neck of the man, the breast of the lamb he gives
for the breast of the man." Similar statements are
found elsewhere.^ This, however, is no regular
part of the sacriiicial ritual, and would seem to
have no prominent place in the Babylonian mean-
ing of the sacrifice. The detailed identification,
further, suggests that we have here a development
along the line of magic, suggested by the common
ideas of witchcraft, in which actions of the witch
or the one performing an incantation against a
witch affected the particular part involved in the
action.

1 See KAT, 3d ed., p. S97.

2 See especially Jeremias, " Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
Alien Orients," 2d ed., p. 368f.

134 THE OLD TESTAMENT

In the Old Testament there is no clear statement
of substitution. The emphasis upon the blood,
as atoning by virtue of the life, is sometimes
thought to suggest it, as indicating that the blood
represents the life given for the life of the man.
The force of this argument is weakened, however,
by the fact that the specific offenses for which
sacrifices are offered are not those for which
there is a death penalty, but less serious offenses.
Another argument is drawn from some state-
ments about the sin offering. The treatment of
the sin offering on the day of Atonement seems
to indicate that it was regarded as very similar
to the goat '' for Azazel," see especially Lev. i6 :
26 in comparison with ver. 28. The goat " for
Azazel," however, was regarded as bearing the
sins of the people (Lev. 16 : 21), which is
thought to make it probable that the sin offering
was so regarded, and hence as a substitute for
man. The argument, however, is indirect and
uncertain.

Substitution appears in the case of the ram
offered in place of Isaac, and also in the redemp-
tion of firstborn sons, although the latter prac-
tice is not definitely sacrificial. The former case
is exceptional, and doubtless to be connected with

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I35

the prevailing ideas in reference to human sacri-
fices. The Old Testament, then, has no clear
teaching that the sacrifice is substitutionary, and
the meaning of the sacrifices is really opposed to
that idea.

Wherever human sacrifices are found, they
doubtless show that animal sacrifices are regarded
as substitutes for human beings, human sacrifice
being offered as the most efficacious sacrifice. In
the Semitic world, human sacrifices were espe-
cially common among the Canaanites.^ The sub-
stitutionary idea, as has already been noted, is a
late idea in the development of the sacrifices, hav-
ing nothing to do with their fundamental signifi-
cance.

There remains for consideration the meaning
of the Old Testament sin offering and guilt offer-
ing. The general meaning of these, as has already
been indicated, is probably the same as of the
burnt offering, so that really they are only varie-
ties of that. In statement they are more directly
connected with the removal of sin and iniquity than
is the burnt offering. The details of the ritual, so
far as they pertain to the disposition of the flesh,
can hardly be considered to give a fundamentally

^ Sellin, "Die Ertrag der Ausgrahungen im Orient," p. 28 seq.

136 THE OLD TESTAMENT

different meaning from that of the burnt offering,
as has been indicated. The treatment of the blood
in the guilt offering is the same as in the burnt
offering. The variation in reference to the blood
in the sin offering probably has no great signifi-
cance, except the sprinkling of the blood before
Yahweh in front of the veil of the sanctuary,
which evidently is to be thought of as bringing the
atoning efficacy of the blood more directly before
Yahweh. This fact, and also the more frequent
use of ns3 in connection with the sin offering and
guilt offering than with the burnt offering, may
indicate variations from the burnt offering in the
direction of greater intensity in atoning efficacy;
but that difference in significance, if any, is slight.
The scope of these two sacrifices is somewhat
different from that of the burnt offering. Both
have reference in general to specific offenses,
while apparently the burnt offering is for sins
which are not known specifically. It is reasonably
clear that the guilt offering is for sins for which
reparation can be made to the injured party; while
the sin offering is for cases where such reparation
cannot be made, including some ceremonial of-
fenses. But this recognition of specific individual
sins as such does not mark any great advance in

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 37

the idea of sin beyond the more general acknowl-
edgment of sinfulness and sinful acts found in
the burnt offering.

The relation of sacrifices to the nation and the
individual should be noted. In its early signifi-
cance, as we have seen, sacrifice was a clan matter.
Later the individual idea arose, especially in con-
nection with the type of sacrifice represented
by the burnt offering. The peace offering re-
tained generally its communal character. It was
not, however, necessarily a clan matter, but in its
very nature it did imply that the sacrificial meal
was shared by a group : it did not become fully an
individual thing, although often brought by an
individual. The burnt offering and sin offering
among the Hebrews might be for the nation or
for individuals; the guilt offering, so far as ap-
pears, was only individual. Among the other
Semitic nations, also, it is reasonably clear that
the burnt offering might be either individual or
national. The Carthaginian regulations are not
very explicit; they imply, however, individual of-
ferings in speaking of the offerer (nar hy^), in
relation probably to each class of sacrifices. That
there were also community sacrifices of some kind
may be presumed. Among the Babylonians the

138 THE OLD TESTAMENT

daily sacrifices, at any rate, were clearly commu-
nity sacrifices. That there were also individual
sacrifices is shown by the ritual, which speaks of
the offerer {hel niqe). In Babylonia, however,
it seems evident that the sacrificial ritual often had
in mind the king, as head of the State, for he is
frequently mentioned in the ritual tablets as the
object of the rites.

So far as has yet been stated, then, the rela-
tion of the sacrifices to individuals or communi-
ties was similar among all the Semitic nations.
In another point, however, the Hebrew conception
differed greatly from the thought elsewhere, al-
though based upon the common conception. Sac-
rifice, we have seen, is essentially a clan matter;
every one partaking of it is of necessity a member
of the clan in good standing. When the burnt
offering has been developed, the fundamental po-
sition is still the same; it is a clan matter in this
sense, that only a member of the clan has a right
to offer it. The sins for which the atoning sacri-
fice is offered are not sufficiently serious to im-
pair one's relation to the clan and to the god of
the clan : if they were sufficient for that, sacri-
fice could not atone for them. In this early con-
ception, the sins which did thus affect one's stand-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I39

ing in the dan were serious offenses directed
against it, materially injuring the life of the clan.
One who had committed a sin of this kind had
forfeited his right as a member of the clan; only-
two courses were then possible, death or banish-
ment. In harmony with these ideas, we find that
among the Arabs the killing of a fellow-tribesman
was the great sin. This, even if unintentional,
was punished by death or expulsion from the
tribe. ^ These general ideas have been expanded
in the Old Testament. The relation of the He-
brews is not that of natural consanguinity with
Yahweh, but they are in covenant relation with
him. The sacrifices presuppose the covenant re-
lation, and they are only for those in good stand-
ing in this relation. The sins for which they atone
are sins that do not seriously affect this covenant
relation, and their effect is fully to restore one's
standing in the theocracy. They have to do, then,
with the individual in his national relation, not
with the individual purely as such.

But the early conception of the difference be-
tween the two classes of sins has been materially
modified and developed in the Old Testament.
The serious sins here are not sins against the tribe

1 W. Robertson Smith, " Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 420.

I40 THE OLD TESTAMENT

in which a common physical Hfe with the god is
seen, they are sins against the God of the cove-
nant, sins which vitally affect one's relation to
Yahweh. These are sins of deliberate purpose,
sins which show rebellion against God; for such
sins the sacrifices make no provision. This dis-
tinction is most clearly stated in certain passages
of P, especially in Num. 15 : 27-31. Here the
sins of deliberate purpose for which the sacrifices
make no provision are characterized as done
" with a high hand," hd-^ T3. The sins for which
the sacrifices make provision are sins done " un-
wittingly," njjB^3. This actually means by mis-
take, error. Its real significance evidently is,
sins done through ignorance, inadvertence, or or-
dinary human frailty, which do not show a de-
liberate departure from God. The sins for which
the burnt offering, sin offering, and guilt offer-
ing are offered are sins described as of the latter
kind, done unwittingly. Here are included ordi-
narily all ritual sins, as well as minor ethical sins.
The sins committed with a high hand leave one
directly in relation with God, to be dealt with in
punishment or mercy. For such sins the ordinary
punishment was death, inflicted by God, which is
undoubtedly meant by the phrase in Num. 15 :

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I4I

30, " that soul shall be cut off from among his
people." This limitation of the sphere of effi-
cacy of sacrifices, while in principle recognized
from early times, yet practically goes far beyond
any limitations among the other Semitic nations,
and is a most significant fact in relation to Old
Testament sacrifice.

Ill

SALVATION THROUGH INCANTATION

THE subject of this chapter is one concerning
which there is teaching only in the Baby-
lonian ritual, not in that of the Arabs or Cartha-
ginians, so far as material is available. In the
Old Testament there is not merely the absence of
teaching, but direct prohibition of such things, as
will be seen.

In Babylonia incantation is very conspicuous.
The general conception is that there are many
subordinate evil spirits, demons, who are to be
called evil simply in the sense that they are malev-
olent toward men. These cause sickness, dis-
aster, and death. They are, of course, less power-
ful than the gods in the fuller sense, so that in a
general way they are somewhat under the control
of the latter. The incantations are addressed,
therefore, both to the demons themselves and to
the gods. The incantation to the demon, if done
in the right way, has a direct magical power to

deliver the individual from his power. The in-
142

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I43

cantation to the god, if correctly performed, neces-
sarily enlists his aid in overcoming the power of
the demon. These incantations were doubtless
an early part of the religious literature at all the
temples, and hence contained references to vari-
ous gods in different regions. The incantation
texts that have been found, however, show to a
larger extent than the other religious literature
the result of the combining of material from dif-
ferent places, since they often enumerate very
many distinct gods, although some of the gods
seem to be more prominent than others in this in-
cantation literature. This literature stands also
in close connection with the sacrificial ritual, and
with prayers and hymns. That is, to most, if not
all, religious acts there was given to some extent
a magical power; if properly performed, they
had a necessary value. The prayers, psalms, and
hymns have ordinarily some words indicating
their magical use. It seems probable, however,
that this is often a later addition, adapting to such
use a composition originally not so intended. It
cannot be afifirmed, therefore, that all approach to
the gods by the Babylonians was along the lines
either of sacrifice or incantation; but this, at any
rate, was usually the case. In general, therefore,

144 THE OLD TESTAMENT

it would seem that salvation by incantation was
the most popular and efficacious method in the
estimation of the Babylonians. The Babylonian
conception of sin, already discussed, needs to be
kept in mind in this connection. Sin was to be
determined by its results ; it was disaster of some
kind that indicated that sin had been committed.
The conception of sin was thus external, and its
removal could be effected by superficial means as
well. Sin was known by its effects ; to remove the
effects was to remove the sin. But this conception
left the determination of the sin an uncertain
matter, and also the determination of the god or
spirit that was directly affected by the sin, and
hence had caused the misfortune. This made the
incantations vague and comprehensive. They
consist largely of enumeration of all conceivable
sins, and calling upon all possible gods and spirits
for relief. Jastrow says,^ " The enumeration of
the causes for the suffering constitutes in fact a
part of the incantation. The mention of the real
cause in the long list — and the list aims to be ex-
haustive, so that the exorciser may strike the real
cause — goes a long way toward ensuring the de-
parture of the evil spirit. And if, besides stri-

* *• Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 292.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 45

king the real cause, the exerciser is fortunate
enough in his enumeration of the various gods,
goddesses, and spirits to call by name upon
the right god or spirit, the one who has the
power over the demon in question, his object is
achieved."

The attitude of the Old Testament toward all
this is that none of its teaching suggests any such
way of salvation, through incantation. It has
been thought that certain details of the Old Tes-
tament regulations embody practices which have
a somewhat magical cast, as, e. g., the bitter water
of jealousy, and doubtless this should be granted.
But these are only minor details, and do not rep-
resent the fully developed Old Testament teach-
ing. In general, the Old Testament directly dis-
approves of everything of the kind. This finds
emphatic expression in the eighteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy. There eleven classes of magical
workers are mentioned and their practices forbid-
den. It is said (Deut. i8 : 12, 14), "For who-
soever doeth these things is an abomination unto
Jehovah." " For these nations, that thou shalt
dispossess, hearken unto them that practise au-
gury, and unto diviners ; but as for thee, Jehovah
thv God hath not suffered thee so to do."

SALVATION IN OTHER WAYS

IN teaching salvation apart from the ways al-
ready mentioned, the Old Testament stands
practically alone, here going beyond any teach-
ings of the other Semitic religions. It is prob-
able, as has already been mentioned, that some of
the Babylonian prayers were composed as the ex-
pression of a direct appeal for divine help and
favor; but generally such appeals had a magical
use. And, of course, in all the religions, gifts to
the gods were a regular feature. But these gifts
were largely regarded as fulfilling one's obliga-
tions to deity, and were not directly a means of
securing favor so much as their absence pro-
voked divine displeasure. Also, in their efficacy,
they are to be considered as similar to sacrifices,
inasmuch as these have come to be considered
gifts. But, generally, neither direct prayers nor
gifts can avail in the removal of the barrier be-
tween gods and men caused by sin. Hence the

general statement will hold that among the Sem-
146

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 47

itic nations, aside from the Hebrews, ordinarily
salvation came only through sacrifice or magic.

In order to gain an adequate idea of the Old
Testament conception of salvation apart from
sacrifice, it will be necessary to consider the matter
somewhat fully, and with reference to the de-
velopment of thought in the Old Testament. This
Old Testament teaching is closely connected with
the limitation in the scope of sacrifice already
mentioned, that sins done by inadvertence, najB'a,
could be atoned for by sacrifice, but for other sins
done with a high hand, non t3, no provision ex-
isted in the sacrificial system. This distinction be-
tween the two classes of sins was true alike of
national sins and individual sins. But the distinc-
tion, as has been indicated, is fully formulated
only in P. In the early chapters of Leviticus, sins
of inadvertence are several times referred to;
while both classes of sins are spoken of in their
relation in Num. 15 : 22-31. Before comparing
this teaching with that of other portions of the
Old Testament, it will be well to refer briefly to
the age of this teaching. It is now frequently
held that P, not only in time of composition but
in substance of teaching, is postexilic, belonging
to the time shortly before Nehemiah. In har-

148 THE OLD TESTAMENT

mony with this idea, it is also held that the post-
exilic period was characterized by a regard for
sacrificial and ritual observances that went far
beyond anything in preexilic times. It is no part
of the purpose of the writer to discuss the time of
composition of P. It is, however, proper to say
that in his view a considerable portion, at any rate,
of the material in P must be preexilic, including
much of the sacrificial material. The testimony of
the preexilic prophets indicates a prominence of
sacrifices in the popular mind certainly not ex-
ceeded by anything after the exile. And surely
a great prominence of ritual ideas in early times
would be, it seems, inevitable in view of the pre-
dominance of such ideas in the early Semitic con-
ceptions. The teaching of P everywhere that the
sacrifice was efficacious as an opus operatum seems
far more like an early Old Testament teaching
than like one of the latest, after prophets and
psalmists had emphasized the importance of moral
acts, and even of the inner life. In relation to the
specific distinction between the two classes of sins
that is before us, it seems inevitable that in sub-
stance it must have been held from an early
period of the distinctive Hebrew development.
We have already seen that in principle it is in

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 49

harmony with the early Semitic ideas. And it is
clear that there was some limitation to the efficacy
of sacrifice. This is seen nationally, e. g., in the
incident of the golden calf (Exod. 32), for the
most part assigned to E. Here, in the case of
national rebellion against Yahweh, there is no
thought of sacrifice ; the sin was followed first by
punishment and then by mercy and forgiveness.
In an individual application, it is seen in the case
cited in Exod. 21 : 14, in the Book of the Cove-
nant, " If a man come presumptuously upon his
neighbor, to slay him with guile ; thou shalt take
him from mine altar, that he may die." Here the
thought is doubtless chiefly of the altar as a sanc-
tuary, but that in itself clearly implies that a sac-
rifice upon the altar would be of no avail to win
the favor of Yahweh.

On the various grounds assigned, then, it seems
reasonably clear to the writer that the distinction
in the treatment of the two classes of sins, stated
explicitly in Num. 15, is one which, in substance,
was known from an early period in the Old Testa-
ment history, and which was therefore familiar to
the Old Testament writers generally. This early
conception, it may be repeated, was that the sacri-
fices atoned only for sins of ignorance or inad-

150 THE OLD TESTAMENT

vertence of nation or individual, but atoned for
these necessarily. They did not directly regard
the attitude of mind of the offerer, although
something was implied concerning this by the
fact that he was in covenant relation with God.
For sins done with a high hand, prompted by re-
bellion against Yahweh, no atonement through
sacrifice was possible ; these put one outside of the
covenant, the regular punishment being death:
" that soul shall be cut off from among his peo-
ple " (Num. 15 : 30). Death was not inflicted,
however, by ordinary human instrumentality, but
by the direction of God or his special visitation,
as in the incident cited (Exod. 32; see also Num.
15 • 32-36; and 25).^ But even in these cases
mercy was often extended, sometimes after pun-
ishment, and sometimes without it, as many events
in the national history indicate. The distinction
between the two classes of sins, while rigid in
principle, was doubtless somewhat elastic in ap-
plication ; L e., no exhaustive classification is any-
where made of the sins which belong in the two
categories respectively.

Let us now examine the attitude of the pro-

1 See especially the discussion of Davidson, " The Theology of the
Old Testament," p. 323.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I5I

phetic writings, the psalms, and the wisdom litera-
ture toward sacrifice. For the sake of clearness it
may be summarily stated at this point that, in the
writer's view, their attitude does not differ greatly
from that already indicated. The distinction be-
tween the two classes of sins appears clearly, and
a recognition of this helps greatly in understand-
ing the apparently contradictory statements. Be-
yond this, it is principally to be noted that sacri-
fices are often spoken of favorably in a general
way as an established institution, more especially
with a national reference. There is no thought of
their abolition ; in fact, the existence and prosperity
of the nation imply sacrifice, the daily sacrifices
being prominently in mind. In this generally
favorable way, as a national institution, sacrifices
are mentioned in Hosea 3 : 4; 9 : 4; Jer. 33 :
18; Isa. 43 : 23f; Mai. i : 7-10; 3 : 3f ; Joel i :
9, 13; 2 : 14; Dan. 9 : 2y\ Ps. 51 : 19; 66 : 13,
15; 96 : 8. Individual offerings are spoken of,
but in the same general way as an established in-
stitution, in Isa. 19 : 21; Jer. 17 : 26; 33 : 11;
Prov. 7 : 14; 17 : i. They are spoken of with
distinct approval in Ezek. 20 : 40; Isa. 56 : 7;
Ps. 54 : 6; 56 : 12; 107 : 22; 116 : 17; 118 :
27; in most cases with special reference to the

152 THE OLD TESTAMENT

thank offering. In Eccl. 9 : 2, the man " who
sacrifices " is evidently a description of the rehg-
ious man. In Ps. 20 : 3 ; Job 1:5; and 42 : 8,
the efficacy of sacrifices is recognized, although
in the last case only partially, the intercession of
Job being also needed. Of course, also, in the
latter part of Ezekiel sacrifices are spoken of with
approval, and many ritual directions are given.
Other passages might be added to those thus
given, chiefly those in which the references are
less direct.

In this connection reference should be made to
a view which finds frequent expression at the
present time. This is that some of the prophets
and psalmists in the earlier time entirely rejected
sacrifices, especially, as usually stated, the pre-
exilic prophets; while later the prophets as well
as others recognized the validity of sacrifices.
The most marked divergence of this view from
the one above given is in reference to the teaching
of the preexilic prophets.

In answer, two things especially may be said.
One is that the prophetic denunciations of sacri-
fice do not contemplate the abolition of the system.
These denunciations are numerous, as will be seen
later, but they are regularly of sacrifices as of-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 53

fered by the wicked. This connection is made
clear and exphcit, so that it is very evident that
it is sacrifices as offered in the time of the prophets
that are in mind. Hence there is no ground for
saying that any preexihc prophet entirely rejected
sacrifices as such. The other thing to be noted
is that several of the preexihc prophets, including
those most prominent, expressly speak in favor-
able terms of sacrifices. Passages showing this
have already been cited, viz., Hosea 3 : 4; 9 : 4;
Isa. 19 : 21; Jer. 17 : 26; 33 : 11, 18. The gen-
uineness of all these passages in Jeremiah is not
certain, although they are accepted by most. But
in any case it will hardly be claimed that not any
of them are genuine.

It should be added, however, that a comparison
between the priestly legislation and the other
writings shows a frequent difference of emphasis.
In the non-ritual writings the emphasis is ordi-
narily not upon the efHcacy of sacrifice, but upon
the limitation in its efficacy. It is this especially
which gives the impression of a marked variation
in the teachings.

We pass to a somewhat more detailed con-
sideration of certain passages which speak un-
favorably of sacrifices. In some it is said that in

154 THE OLD TESTAMENT

the particular cases in question the sacrifices are
unacceptable on account of sin, as Amos 4 : 4f ;
Hosea 4 : i^f, 19; 8 : 13; Jer. 6 : 20; Prov.
15 : 8; 21 : 2y. The precise way in which they
are affected by sin is not made clear; it might
seem at first that the teaching is here found that
a right attitude of mind is essential for the ac-
ceptance of sacrifice, which has not been directly
taught in anything yet noted. But there seems
to be nothing to suggest that idea. Rather,
when viewed in the light of their times and cir-
cumstances, these passages indicate that the refer-
ence is to sacrifices offered in cases that are out-
side of the sphere of sacrifice, and are thus entirely
in harmony with the distinction between the two
classes of sins already noted. The wicked here,
who offer the unacceptable sacrifices, are those
who have sinned with a high hand; they have
committed offenses which cannot be atoned for
by sacrifice. This is evidently the thought even in
the strong language of Isa. 66 : 3f, which is ad-
dressed to sinners, " He that killeth an ox is as he
that slayeth a man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as
he that breaketh a dog's neck ; he that offereth an
oblation, as he that offereth swine's blood ; he that
burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 55

Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their
soul deHghteth in their abominations: I also will
choose their delusions, and will bring their fears
upon them; because when I called, none did an-
swer ; when I spake, they did not hear : but they
did that which was evil in mine eyes, and chose
that wherein I delighted not."

In other passages the same thought is expressed,
with something more. These sinners are not only
outside of the scope of sacrifices, but, as implied by
that fact, their proper punishment is death. That
punishment, however, in the mercy of God, may
be averted by repentance, of which the best evi-
dence is a changed life. In these passages, then,
the thought is not, as it is often considered, that
the performance of moral acts is to be regarded as
directly taking the place of sacrifices ; but rather,
this performance testifies to the sincerity of the
repentance of those whose only hope is in di-
rect access to God through repentance, who have
nothing to hope from sacrifices because of their
great sins. Thus Amos 5 : 22-24, without dis-
cussing ver. 25, the meaning of which is much dis-
puted, evidently means, in the context, especially in
relation to ver. 16-20, that we have here sacrifices
unacceptable on account of sin which puts the of-

156 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ferers outside of their scope. They also empha-
size the need of a changed life as an expression of
repentance in the words (ver. 24), " But let jus-
tice roll down as waters, and righteousness as a
mighty stream." This side is more fully stated
in ver. I4f, preceding, " Seek good, and not evil,
that ye may live; and so Jehovah, the God of
hosts, will be with you, as ye say. Hate the evil,
and love the good, and establish justice in the
gate: it may be that Jehovah, the God of hosts,
will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph."
The same thought is found in Hosea 6 : 6, which
should be rendered, " For love I delight in, and
not sacrifice; and knowledge of God, and not
burnt offerings." Here the relation to the cove-
nant is emphasized by the next verse, which speaks
of those concerned as transgressing the covenant.
Such is also clearly the thought of Isa. i : 11-17.
The condition of those addressed is evident from
the preceding part of the chapter, and is also
shown by the reason given in ver. 15 for the un-
acceptableness of the worship, " your hands are
full of blood." Here the way to God's favor is
clearly shown by ver. i6f, " Wash you, make you
clean, put away the evil of your doings from be-
fore mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ;

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 57

seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fa-
therless, plead for the widow," as well as by the
following ver. 18-20. The thought is the same in
Micah 6 : 6-8. The condition of the people ad-
dressed is shown by other parts of the prophecy,
as chap. 3. Here the demand upon the wicked
nation is '' to do justly, and to love kindness, and
to walk humbly with thy God." This is clearly
the thought also of Ps. 51 : 16, 17. This is writ-
ten by one who has committed great transgres-
sion, therefore sacrifice is of no avail for his sin.
The only way to approach God is through re-
pentance (ver. 17), "The sacrifices of God are
a broken spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, O
God, thou wilt not despise."

A few other passages are based upon the same
general ideas, but go a little farther. Prov. 21:3
states, *' To do righteousness and justice is more
acceptable to Jehovah than sacrifice." It seems
probable that this should be rendered, " To do
righteousness and justice is acceptable to Jehovah
rather than sacrifice." Here there is no context
that enables one to say whether it is distinctly
sacrifice of the wicked that is in mind. Yet the
passages already cited would make that a natural
thought, at least for the starting-point. Of course

158 THE OLD TESTAMENT

those who do not righteousness and justice are
sinners from whom sacrifice would not be accept-
able, but who often had an exaggerated concep-
tion of the efficacy of sacrifice. This, then, would
be of the nature of a generalization from the
teachings already mentioned : sacrifices cannot, as
it is often thought, take the place of righteousness
and justice. The same is probably to be re-
garded as the teaching of Ps. 40 : 6-8. Here the
thought is that sacrifice cannot take the place of
obedience. This regards " sin offering " as the
proper rendering in the last clause of ver. 6.
With the view of Briggs ^ and a few others, that
this should be rendered " sin," we should have
simply the general teaching that sacrifice from a
great sinner is unacceptable.

In Ps. 50 : 8-14, a somewhat different thought
seems to be found. There sacrifices are not en-
tirely rejected, in fact they are recognized in
ver. 5, " Gather my saints together unto me, those
that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."
Here, then, it is not the wicked but the righteous
that are addressed. What is reproved in this
passage is apparently an excessive valuation of the
sacrifice as a gift to God. In ver, 16-21, when

* Commentary in loco.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 59

the wicked are addressed, who have broken the
covenant, there is no mention of sacrifice.

There are many other passages which speak of
direct approach to God, often with mercy and
forgiveness, without mention of sacrifice. In
many of these, at any rate, those are thought of
who have committed great sin, and who conse-
quently could obtain nothing from sacrifice. This
is especially the case in the prophets, where it is
particularly the national salvation that is in
mind, based upon God's direct forgiveness, al-
though individuals are also included. God's di-
rect forgiveness is thus spoken of, e. g., in Isa.
38 : 17; Micah 7 : 19; Isa. 44 : 22. It is clear,
also, that for the most part in the psalms it is
those who have committed great sin who are
thought of when God's forgiveness is mentioned,
as in 78 : 38; 79 : 9; 85 : 2. This is not
equally evident in Ps. 65 : 3, but the terms used
would naturally suggest it.

There are also a few passages which speak
of approach to God in the temple, or tabernacle,
where sacrifice might naturally be mentioned, but
it is ignored. These are especially Ps. 24 : 3-6,
and Isa. 33 : 14-16, although in the latter there is
no direct reference to the temple, but to the pres-

l6o THE OLD TESTAMENT

ence of God. Here the qualifications for entrance
to Yahweh are ethical, not ritual. In these there
seems to be a disposition to ignore the sacrifices
in their own sphere, substituting ethical character
for them. Probably, however, they should be re-
garded simply as illustrations of the tendency,
already mentioned, to place the emphasis upon
character rather than sacrifices.

Ps. 26 : 6 apparently demands an ethical prepa-
ration for joining in the worship at the altar; if
so, it seems to be the only passage directly making
this demand. Probably a better rendering for the
verse, however, is, " I have washed my hands
in innocency; then may I compass thine altar, O
Jehovah." With this rendering the meaning is,
as suggested by indications in the psalm, that
the author was debarred, apparently by danger-
ous sickness, from the temple. He is praying for
restoration to health, and at the same time for
relief from the suspicion that he is a great sinner,
which might be indicated by his affliction. With
this interpretation the verse is simply based on
the fundamental idea of the limitation of the scope
of sacrifice.

The passages quoted, and others, which speak
of approach to God without sacrifice, often use for

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS l6l

atonement the word ^§5, the word that is used
in the ritual Hterature. In its usual and char-
acteristic non-ritual use, the word has God for
the subject and sin as the object. It seems reason-
ably clear that the ritual use of the word is the
older, both because it more clearly expresses the
original force of the root, and also because that
gives a more natural development of the meaning
than the reverse process would afford. In har-
mony with the broadening of the early ritual
meaning of sin, this ritual term has naturally come
to be used with a wider application. This word,
originally signifying to wash away, as a physical,
ceremonial act, should here probably be under-
stood to mean, as a spiritual act, the complete re-
moval of sin, which is suggested also by many
other Old Testament words and phrases. In this
removal there is no instrumentality, in general,
aside from God himself ; he removes sin by reason
of his very nature, his mercy, his forgiving love,
especially " for his name's sake." Of course a
repentant spirit on the part of man is a general
condition for this. Sin in its real force and
power is thus not atoned for by sacrifice, but is
forgiven by God himself. This conception marks
the great difference between the Old Testament

1 62 THE OLD TESTAMENT

and the other Semitic rehgions in reference to
salvation. The conception of sacrifice within its
sphere is the same, except in details, as that pre-
vailing elsewhere. It is the conception of the limi-
tation of the scope of sacrifice, and of salvation
apart from it, that is really unique in the Old Tes-
tament.

PART IV
THE FUTURE LIFE

THE GENERAL CONCEPTION

THE subject of this part is the future life,
rather than a more general subject like the
last things. The reason is that certain things in
the Old Testament doctrine which would be in-
cluded under the more general title have practic-
ally no equivalent elsewhere. This is especially
true of the Messianic teaching of the Old Testa-
ment and the related ideas concerning the future
of the kingdom of God. There is nothing suffi-
ciently parallel to this among the other nations
under consideration to need any detailed con-
sideration. It is true that there are slight re-
semblances between this Messianic expectation
and the Egyptian anticipation of a future king
who should be a deliverer.^ The resemblance to
the work of Marduk in Babylonia ^ is much
slighter. But any such parallels yet known do

1 Jeremias, " Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients,"
2d ed., p. 4o6f.

2 Jeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients,'
2d ed., p. i8o.

i6S

1 66 THE OLD TESTAMENT

not touch the real essence of the Old Testament
Messianic expectation.

The only Semitic religion, aside from the Old
Testament, in which any extended teaching con-
cerning the future life has been found is the Baby-
lonian. For purposes of comparison it may be
desirable to state first the Babylonian conception,
after which the Egyptian view, as well as other
fragmentary Semitic teachings, will be briefly
mentioned. The Babylonian conception of the
earth is as a mountain. The origin of this concep-
tion is uncertain, but that does not particularly
affect the present matter. The abode of the dead
was conceived of as a cave under a mountain.
This might seem to point to a time when the
people lived in a mountainous district and buried
in caves. ^ But that is by no means certain.
Doubtless it does indicate that in early times, as
well as later, the dead were buried in the earth.
The idea of a cave may have been a natural de-
^^elopment of the idea of the grave, as necessary
in order to any freedom of movement. Many
features in the conception of the abode of the dead
come from the grave. The name of the under-
world in Babylonian is Aralu. Some have thought

^ Jastrow, " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 557.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 67

that there is another name occurring a few times,
Shualu, the Hebrew b%vj, Sheol, but this is very
doubtful. This region is represented as a dark
and gloomy place, surrounded by seven walls. It
was thus strongly guarded so that none of the
dead could escape and none of the living could
enter. It was presided over by the goddess Allatu
and her consort Nergal, accompanied by asso-
ciated gods and demons. In the poem called
" Ishtar's Descent to Hades," containing an ac-
count of a visit of the goddess Ishtar to the under-
world, is given a good description of this region.

Toward the land of No-Return, the region of darkness,
Ishtar, the daughter of the Moon-god, directed her

attention.
The Moon-god's daughter directed her attention
Toward the house of darkness, Irkalla's dwelling-place,
Toward the house out of which he who enters never

comes,
Toward the road whose way turns not back,
Toward the house where he who enters is deprived of

light,
A place where dust is their sustenance, their food clay.
Light they see not, they sit in darkness,
They are clothed, like a bird, with feathered raiment,
Over door and bolt is spread the dust.^

Jastrow describes the condition of the dead, on
the Babylonian view, as follows :^ " What dis-

1 ABL, p. 408. 2 " Religion of Babylonia and Assyria," p. 276f.

1 68 THE OLD TESTAMENT

tinguishes the dead from the Hving is their in-
activity. They He in Aralu without doing any-
thing. Everything there is in a state of neglect
and decay. The dead can speak, but the Baby-
lonians probably believed, like the Hebrews, that
the dead talk in whispers, or chirp like birds.
The dead are weak, and, therefore, unless others
attend to their needs, they suffer pangs of hunger,
or must content themselves with * dust and clay '
as their food. Tender care during the last mo-
ments of life was essential to comparative well-
being in Aralu. The person who goes to Aralu
in sorrow and neglect will continue sorrowful and
neglected." The condition of the dead was thus
a shadowy kind of existence. Aralu was under
the control of the gods and goddesses already
mentioned ; the other gods had nothing to do with
it ; it was beyond their province.

A similar conception at a late date among the
Phoenicians is indicated by allusions in the in-
scriptions of Eshmunazar and Tabnith of Sidon,
about 300 B. C. Each of these pronounces a
curse on any one who disturbs his grave, wish-
ing, among other things, that he may have no
" resting-place among the shades," D«3n n« ^dWd.^

1 CIS, I, 3; Cooke, "A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions,"
pp. 26f, 3of.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 169

The Aramaic inscription of Panammu, eighth
century B. C, implies a future Hfe in speaking of
himself after death as eating and drinking with
the god Hadad/

The Egyptian religion contains many inconsist-
ent representations concerning the future life, as
on many other points. The principal teachings
are those of the cults of Ra and Osiris. In the
doctrine of Ra, the abode of the dead was under
the earth, and was a cheerless region, as in the
Babylonian conception, being ordinarily in dark-
ness. It was a region in its characteristics much
like Egypt itself. In the doctrine of Osiris, the
abode was more cheerful, but the general condi-
tions of existence are not clearly stated.

There can hardly be any question that the
general conception of the Hebrew Sheol has no
distinctively Egyptian features, and is the same as
the Babylonian idea of Aralu. This is a concep-
tion which is assumed as familiar in the Old Tes-
tament, and more frequently alluded to than di-
rectly taught. A few passages will show the prin-
cipal features of the Old Testament view. In Job
10 : 2 if. Job says, " Before I go whence I shall
not return, even to the land of darkness and of

1 Cooke, "A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions," p. 160 seq.

I/O THE OLD TESTAMENT

the shadow of death ; the land dark as midnight ;
the land of the shadow of death, without any
order, and where the Hght is as midnight." In
Eccl. 9 : 5f, 10, it is said, " For the Hving know
that they shall die : but the dead know not any-
thing, neither have they any more a reward; for
the memory of them is forgotten. As well their
love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished
long ago; neither have they any more a portion
for ever in anything that is done under the sun.
. . Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with
thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor
knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou
goest." That there is no return is also emphasized
in Job 7 : 9f; i6 : 22; 2 Sam. 12 : 23. The
only material modification of the view that ap-
pears in the Old Testament, aside from the mat-
ter of the distinction between the righteous and
wicked, which will be treated later, is concern-
ing the relation of Yahweh to Sheol. There is
no express statement in the Old Testament that
Yahweh has no power over Sheol. There is
clearly the idea that the dead have nothing to
do with him, which, however, evidently approaches
the matter from the other side, from the stand-
point of the dead, in their loss of the relations

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I71

that prevail in this Hfe. Thus it is said (Ps.
115 : 17), "The dead praise not Jehovah,
neither any that go down into silence," and Ps.
6 : 5, " For in death there is no remembrance
of thee: in Sheol who shall give thee thanks?"
The general teaching of the Old Testament, even
in early times, is that Yahweh, as a god of su-
preme and universal power, cannot be limited to
this life, but his control extends even to Sheol.
Thus in the song of Hannah it is said ( i Sam. 2 :
6), " Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive : he bring-
eth down to Sheol, and bringeth up." Ps. 139 :
8 says, " If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
there : if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou are
there."

The spirits of the dead, it was thought by the
Babylonians, could return to earth and cause
sickness of men. In this work they were like the
evil demons, and were called by the same names,
chiefly ekimmu, sometimes utukku, which were
two among several names of the demons. Incan-
tations were directed against them, as against
the demons. There were also priests who had to
do especially with the spirits of the dead, these
were known as sha ekimmu. These could bring
up the dead {miishelu ekimmu). The spirit thus

172 THE OLD TESTAMENT

brought Up is known as shulu^ There are cere-
monies for exorcising these spirits of the dead
who have taken possession of a man.^ Offerings
are made to them for their food, called kispu, and
libations, called naq me, pouring out of water.^
They are also given other gifts, such as clothing.
These offerings, it would seem, are largely to
pacify the spirits so as to prevent trouble from
them, or to drive them away from one whom they
have attacked. Partly also, it would seem, this
was prompted by real solicitude for the welfare
of ancestors, who are, of course, the spirits ordi-
narily in mind.*

The only Old Testament account of the return
of a spirit of the dead is in the real or supposed
bringing up of Samuel (i Sam. 28 : 8-19),
where the phraseology has resemblances to the
Babylonian terms, especially in the use of bring
up (nbj^n)j corresponding to the Babylonian
mushelu. But in connection with this passage and
elsewhere, the Old Testament regularly forbids
such practices. The other Babylonian features
mentioned are unknown in the Old Testament,
or specifically forbidden.

1 See especially KAT, 3d edy^ pp. 460, 640.

2 See especially Zimmern, " Ritual Tablets," No. 52, pp. 164-167.

3 Zimmern, " Ritual Tablets," No. 52, pp. 164-167.
* See KB, II, pp. 262!, i92f.

REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS IN THE
FUTURE LIFE

BEFORE directly considering the subject
before us, it may be well to state again
briefly the conception concerning rewards and
punishments in this life found in the Old Testa-
ment and among the Babylonians and Assyrians.
The general teaching in both is substantially the
same. They teach that righteousness is rewarded
and sin punished in this life. Of course the mean-
ing of this depends upon the meaning of the
terms, which varies somewhat in the two cases,
as has already been seen. According to the Baby-
lonian conception, sin is only definitely known
by its results— in disaster. Hence there is noth-
ing to interfere with the teaching that sin brings
punishment, because the sin, of some kind, may
be definitely concluded from the disaster itself.
The conception of righteousness as bringing re-
ward, however, was apparently rather a nega-
tive one; the reward was, in general, the absence

173

174 THE OLD TESTAMENT

of sickness or disaster. It was a part of the con-
ception that sin brought death, and hence that
long Hfe was a reward of righteousness. This
appears prominently in the formula that is com-
mon in the letters and elsewhere, wishing for one
length of days.

In the Old Testament the conception of sin was
more clearly defined, as has been seen, and on a
higher basis. The result was that disaster with-
out special sin was observed, as well as prosperity
of the wicked, and such cases proved confusing.
Hence, while the general conception is like the
Babylonian, as has been stated, in the later
Old Testament teaching this was considered to
have exceptions, although not fully abandoned.
That long life was the result of righteousness was
a part of the general Old Testament view.

Since the general conception in both nations
thus contemplated rewards and punishments with
a measure of fulness in this life, it is not surpri-
sing that we find comparatively little concerning
them in relation to the future life. In considering
whether there is any relation of the kind, it will
be convenient to begin with the Babylonian belief.
The questions here are two, which will be con-
sidered somewhat together. First, are there any

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 75

differences in the condition of separate individ-
uals in Aralu? Secondly, if there are such dif-
ferences in condition, are they due to the life in
the present world, in such a way that they can be
considered rewards or punishments?

The clearest passage for difference in condi-
tion of souls in the underworld is found in the
Gilgamesh narrative, tablet XII, col. VI, 11. 1-12.
The preceding context is broken away, so that
the reference of the first line is doubtful. The
translation is as follows :^

Rests on a soft couch, and drinks pure water;

The hero slain in battle —

Thou and I have often seen such an one —
His father and mother support his head,
And his wife [kneels] at his side.
Yea! the spirit of such a man is at rest.
But the man whose corpse remains [unburied] upon the
field—

Thou and I have often seen such an one —
His spirit does not find rest in the earth (i. e., Hades).
The man whose spirit has no one who cares for it —

Thou and I have often seen such an one —
Consumes the dregs of the bowl, the broken remnants

of food,
That are cast into the street.

In the first line the rendering "soft couch"
might convey a wrong impression, the rendering

lABL, p. 366.

176 THE OLD TESTAMENT

" couch " would probably be better. It is the
usual word for couch, rna'alu. The word " rests "
(salil) is the same word as is used below, with a
negative, in the description of the one whose body
is unburied. It is not certain that the first line
refers to the hero slain in battle. But assuming,
as is usually done, that that is the case, his condi-
tion is not the result of his being a hero, but of
the care he receives from relatives. The one who
has not rest, but must wander about, is the one
whose body is unburied. The first line, then, in this
statement probably only means that the one who
receives proper care, especially burial, has rest in
the underworld. Such a one, who has proper
care, also has pure water to drink; while the one
who has no care has nothing fit to eat or drink.
This care includes care at the time of death, and
evidently also after death, as is here seen es-
pecially from the statement, " The man whose
spirit has no one who cares for it." This care
doubtless included the food and drink offered to
the spirits of the dead, already mentioned. It
seems evident that the conception is that the
food and drink offered to the dead form their
food and drink ; if this is not provided, they have
only fragments to eat and that which is left by

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 77

Others to drink. The inscription on the conical
piece of clay placed in coffins invokes this bless-
ing on any one who leaves it undisturbed, " May
his name be blessed in the Upperworld, and in the
Underworld may his departed spirit drink of
clear water." ^ Here it is evident that there is no
statement of the definite way to reach this de-
sirable end. In the light of what has already
been noted this is only a wish that the one who
has shown kindness to the dead may receive it
from others.

In tablet X, col. VI of the Gilgamesh narra-
tive, it is said of the Anunnaki, the great gods,
and the goddess of fate that they determine death
and life. This is said in connection with the un-
derworld, but the precise reference is not alto-
gether clear. It is thought by some that it re-
fers to the determination of the fate of those
who arrive there. But it seems much more
natural to regard it as referring to those on
this earth, for it is immediately followed by the
statement, " the day of death is unknown."
Hence this would have no reference to the ques-
tion before us.

The conclusion, then, is that the Babylonians

1 Delitzsch, " Babel and Bible," p. 49; see also KAT, 3d ed.. p. 638.
M

I7S THE OLD TESTAMENT

knew nothing of a separation in space between
different classes in the underworld. In general,
all shared the same conditions. A spirit whose
body was unburied, however, was obliged to
wander without finding rest. The care of rela-
tives and friends, especially the offerings, pro-
vided food and drink for the spirits; and those
who had not such care consequently suffered.
This difference in condition, however, had no
reference to moral condition or to the life on
earth ; it was not, therefore, in any real sense re-
ward or punishment.

The Phoenician passages already quoted show a
belief, similar to the Babylonian, that some of the
shades had a resting-place in the next world. In
the Aramaic inscription of Panammu, already re-
ferred to, a teaching of future blessedness seems
to be found. But it is doubtful whether this in-
dicates a general belief of that kind : it may rather
show a hope of some special treatment, perhaps
deification, of himself as a king.

In both phases of the Egyptian doctrine al-
ready referred to there is some distinction be-
tween the righteous and the wicked. In the cult
of Ra, this distinction was made on ritual and
magical grounds. The abode of the righteous

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 79

was by a river, the counterpart of the Nile. This
was, however, a world of darkness, the region
of night, lighted each night for a brief space by
Ra, the sun god, as he passed through it in his
bark. The ordinary lot of the righteous had
little that was attractive : it was vague and
shadowy. A few of the righteous were received
into the bark with Ra and made the journey with
him in perpetual light: they were absorbed into
him. But this distinction was not the reward of
a good life, it was the lot of a few of the rich
and learned who were acquainted with certain
mystic formulae. The wicked were also located
on the banks of a river and subjected to tortures
from horrible monsters, such as strange animals
and fiery serpents.

This cult of Ra was particularly the official re-
ligion. The Osiris cult, however, placed more
emphasis on the future life. The teaching on this
point is contained in portions of the Book of the
Dead. In this, also, the separation between the
righteous and wicked is largely on magical and
ritual grounds, although ethical features are also
included. In the early part of the journey after
death the spirit must repeat certain prayers and
incantations in order to escape the enemies lying

l8o THE OLD TESTAMENT

in wait — demons in various animal forms — and
arrive in safety at the judgment hall, where he
was received by Mat, the goddess of truth and
law. Here Osiris on the judgment seat waited to
pronounce sentence on the soul. The soul repeated
a prescribed confession, containing both ritual
and ethical elements. Then the heart, or con-
science, of the man was weighed, to see whether
his statements were borne out by his life. If so, he
was admitted to the fields of Alu, the abode of the
blest. Concerning the condition there the descrip-
tion is vague. These righteous were obliged to
do some manual labor, although their places
might be taken by ushebtis, figures buried with
the mummies. The ultimate condition seems to
have been absorption into Osiris. The condi-
tions of life for the wicked were even more uncer-
tian; Sayce thinks their ultimate fate was anni-
hilation.^ The final condition of the righteous
seems to be the same on both views, a pantheistic
absorption.

In this matter of separation between righteous
and wicked, the Old Testament shows no marked
resemblance to the Egyptian doctrines.

The general conception of Sheol, as has been

1 " The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia," p. 179.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS l8l

said, is like the Babylonian Aralu, and is found
throughout the Old Testament. Yet the Old Tes-
tament does make a distinct advance upon this
thought. This appears in two ways. So far as
concerns the actual condition in Sheol, the Old
Testament does not definitely divide between the
righteous and the wicked. But in the later time,
as the conception of retribution in this world
allows many exceptions, the problem of evil is
felt to call for a solution, and in the absence of a
satisfactory solution in this life the thought turns
to the future life. There are a few passages,
therefore, in which the expectation is expressed
that the righteous may not be given over to the
power of Sheol, and this is based upon their fel-
lowship with Yahweh. This is seen especially in
Ps. i6; 49; 73; Job 19 : 25-27. But these pas-
sages give no definite teaching. Prov. 11:7 ^"^
14 : 32 give expression to the same hope. The
other addition to the idea of Sheol is by the teach-
ing of a resurrection. This appears in the pro-
phetic thought at first as a national resurrection,
the nation which has died in exile shall be raised
again from the dead, as in Ezek. 37. Then this
idea of national resurrection is extended to the
individual, so that the teaching of the resurrec-

1 82 THE OLD TESTAMENT

tion of the righteous dead appears in some pas-
sages; see especially Isa. 26 : 19. This is further
extended to the wicked as well, with a separation
between them, in Dan. 12:2," And many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt." This marked
contrast appears between the Old Testament
teaching and that of the other religions, the dis-
tinction between righteous and wicked is one that
is based on ethical grounds.

PARTV

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

IT will be necessary to summarize some of the
results already reached, and then in the light
of these summaries to discuss certain general
conclusions.

The first thing to note is that much has been
found which is common to the Old Testament
teaching and to one or more of the other Semitic
religions. The one prominent feature in which
the Old Testament teaching is the same as
the teaching of these other religions generally
is in reference to sacrifice. The sacrificial sys-
tem of the Old Testament is substantially
identical with the common-Semitic sacrificial sys-
tem. It differs from that in details, as the other
religions also differ among themselves in a similar
way. But in reference to the kinds of sacrifice
and their significance it is in substantial accord
with common-Semitic ideas, as also in general
in reference to salvation through sacrifice. The
s:reat difference, however, is in the limitation of

185

1 86 THE OLD TESTAMENT

the scope of sacrifice. In reference to sin, also,
a portion of the Old Testament teaching has a
marked similarity to the common-Semitic ideas.
But this is not the highest point in the Old Testa-
ment development of the thought; that point is a
teaching concerning sin that is radically su-
perior to the common-Semitic teaching. Again,
the teaching concerning the future life in the
most of the Old Testament is in substantial ac-
cord with the Babylonian views. But the intro-
duction in the Old Testament of the teaching
concerning rewards and punishments, together
with the resurrection, marks a higher stage, al-
though this appears late in the Old Testament,
and in only a few passages. These three teach-
ings, concerning sacrifice, sin, and the future life,
are those in which the greatest resemblance is
to be seen between the Old Testament and the
other religions. There is a close resemblance, to
be sure, in the views of the personality of the di-
vine nature, which resemblance is of a different
kind, however, since that is a feature which al-
most necessarily results from anthropomorphism,
and hence has comparatively little significance.

At the other end of the scale stand those Old
Testament teachings in which the contrast with

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 187

the common-Semitic view is especially marked.
Here is to be noted first the teaching concerning
divine unity, in which the Old Testament differs
radically from the common-Semitic view, even
although tendencies in the direction of monothe-
ism are to be noted in the other religions. The
teaching concerning divine spirituality is also
in marked contrast with the common-Semitic
view, although traces of spirituality are to be
noted elsewhere. So also the teaching concern-
ing the ethical completeness of Yahweh is with-
out a parallel in the common-Semitic view, the
latter contemplating the deities for the most part
as non-moral, and sometimes immoral, with
traces of ethical elements. The conception of
salvation apart from sacrifice or incantation, as
presented in the Old Testament, also, has no real
parallel to the teaching in the other religions, and
is in marked contrast with their teachings. The
Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament, fur-
ther, which was alluded to, is without any close
known parallel among the other nations con-
sidered.

The other specific points on which comparison
has been made are intermediate between these
two extremes. They show resemblances and dif-

1 88 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ferences; but the differences are greater than
the resemblances. Here are to be included all
the divine metaphysical attributes, eternity, om-
nipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; and
also the moral attributes, faithfulness, righteous-
ness, and love. In all these the Old Testament
teaching is in marked contrast with the common-
Semitic view; but there are somewhat stronger
tendencies elsewhere in the direction of the Old
Testament teachings than in the case of the group
previously mentioned. In both groups, the Old
Testament teaching is not only different from,
but clearly superior to, that of the other religions.

The comparison made with the Egyptian re-
ligion has been slight, but no close resemblances
to the Old Testament have been observed.

In passing from the summary to the conclusions,
the first question to be discussed is concerning the
origin of this element which is common to the
Old Testament and one or more of the other
Semitic religions. Here should be considered
first the group in which the resemblance is great-
est. There are three theoretical possibilities to
account for such similarities: (i) independent
development, with no connection; (2) borrowing,
in one direction or another; (3) inheritance from

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 89

common ancestors. The first is manifestly im-
probable where the resemblance is marked. In the
case of the group of marked resemblances, we
note concerning two points, sin and sacrifice, that
the common element belongs to the formal, and
hence to the lower, side of the teaching; and that
in both the common element was evidently held by
the Hebrews at a comparatively early stage in
the national development, as well as later. This
statement is based directly upon the occurrence
of these ideas at an early period, and also upon
the fact that the higher view of both subjects,
which is manifestly a later development, is itself
rather early. The teaching on both points, con-
sequently, is too early to be naturally borrowed
from the Babylonians, from whom borrowing is
usually supposed to have taken place, if at all.
Borrowing from the Babylonians may most
naturally be supposed to have taken place at the
time of the Babylonian captivity, less naturally
at the time of the Assyrian invasions. At any
other time borrowing from the Babylonians or
Assyrians would be indirect rather than direct.
Against any large amount of borrowing is also
the fact that comparatively few words for similar
ideas are the same in the Babylonian and Hebrew

190 THE OLD TESTAMENT

languages. The teaching concerning the future
Hfe, further, is closely connected with these other
teachings, and is clearly found at an early point
in the Hebrew development. Hence in this group
where the resemblance is closest the common ele-
ment, it would seem, must be accounted for as the
result of inheritance from common ancestors :
these views are the expression of ideas which, if
they may not be called primitive Semitic ideas, at
any rate approach the primitive. It is not meant
that there may not also be some borrowing, but
this, if so, must pertain to the details rather than
to the main substance of the conceptions.

Here, doubtless, reference should be made to
the view that the Hebrew sacrificial system was
largely borrowed from the Canaanites. This is
a frequent assumption, but positive evidence for
it seems to be lacking. It is based principally
upon the idea that the religion of Israel before
the conquest of Canaan, sometimes called the
nomad religion, was simple, and sacrifice was an
unimportant element in it. After the conquest,
in the so-called peasant religion, it was an elabo-
rate system, with a fully developed sacrificial sys-
tem. The Canaanites also, it is said, had a fully
developed sacrificial and ceremonial system

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I9I

Therefore this system, it is thought, must have
been borrowed from the Canaanites. " There
can be no doubt about it, the sacrificial cultus is
in its main features a Canaanite institution ap-
propriated by Israel after the conquest." ^ This
view exaggerates the contrast between the con-
dition before and after the conquest. There is no
reason to suppose that there was ever a time in the
early history of Israel when sacrifice was con-
sidered unimportant. This view of the religion
before the conquest is based chiefly upon Amos
5 : 25 and Jer. 7 : 22, the interpretation of both
of which is doubtful, and probably does not sup-
port these contentions. That there was some
change after the conquest is unquestionably the
case, but there is no evidence to show that it was
in essence more than a fuller unfolding and de-
velopment of the institutions already in existence.
That there was probably influence by the Canaan-
ites, and borrowing from them, is riot denied; it
is only maintained that there is no evidence that
this affected more than the details of the cultus.
In fact, the recent evidence of excavations in
Palestine goes to show that the attitude of the

1 Marti, "The Religion of the Old Testament," p. 88; see also
p. 66 seq.

192 THE OLD TESTAMENT

Hebrews toward the Canaanite religion was
largely one of opposition, and that not only at a
later time but soon after the conquest. This is
indicated especially by the fact that human sacri-
fice (child sacrifice) is shown by these excavations
to have been very common among the Canaanites ;
while among the Hebrews it was very rare. In
fact, no traces of it during the Hebrew period
were found at Taanek, while at Gezer those found
were only in the form of oflferings in connection
with buildings. '' Dagegen ist schon jetzt fast
mit Bestimmheit zu hehaupten, dass die Spur en
von Kinderopfern nach 1200 [B. C] gans selten
werden, fast nnr dock in der Form von Bauopfern
nachzuweisen sind/' ^

The larger number of Old Testament ideas
come in the group where the resemblance with
the other Semitic religions is much less than in
the cases already cited. Here it is not possible
to speak very definitely; but there is no reason
to reach a different conclusion from the preced-
ing. In cases where this resemblance is close,
the cause is naturally early Semitic inheritance.
In details, it is quite possible that there has been
influence or borrowing. It is also possible that

'^ SelHn, "Der Ertrag der Ausgrabungen ini Orient," p. 34.

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I93

there may have been some independent develop-
ment: starting with certain ideas common to the
Semitic mind, the different nations may have
moved along similar lines independently of each
other.

We come to a further consideration of the dis-
tinctive teachings of the Old Testament, those
which are peculiar to the Old Testament, with-
out close parallel among the other Semitic re-
ligions. Here it will be advisable to consider
first the group of most strongly marked individ-
uality, in which are included the teachings which
are in decided contrast with the other religions.
At this point it is of course desirable to keep in
mind the limitations of our knowledge, i. e., of
the material available for comparison. Yet that
consideration does not justify such sweeping state-
ments as those of Winckler, that all doctrines of
the Hebrews were derived from the Babylonians :
those not found in their literature will yet be
found. ^ It is a significant fact that the closest
resemblances of the Old Testament teachings to
the Babylonian, and to those of the other Semitic
religions as well, are in reference to the lower
parts of the Old Testament, those which deal

i"The History of Babylonia and Assyria," especially p. 157^.
N

194 THE OLD TESTAMENT

chiefly with the formal side; while the distinc-
tive teachings in the Old Testament are those
which pertain to the highest part of the Old Tes-
tament, the most spiritual and ethical side. It is
these highest teachings of the Old Testament
which are most clearly without parallel in the
other Semitic religions. This group of specially
distinctive teachings, it will be remembered, in-
cluded the unity of God (monotheism), his
spirituality, his ethical completeness, and the sal-
vation of man through direct approach to him.
Here the unity of God is the condition of any
exalted conception of his character; his spirit-
uality and ethical completeness pertain to the
highest features of any possible conception of his
character; while the salvation of man through
direct access to him is a salvation in harmony
with that exalted character, more fully in har-
mony than any formal way of salvation, not to
say any magical way, could possibly be. These
things are not only a part of the highest teach-
ings of the Old Testament, but they pertain to
the most fundamental portions of it.

We have discussed the source of the common
elements in the Old Testament. What shall be
said concerning the source of the distinctive ele-

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I95

ments? These, we have seen, are not only dif-
ferent from the conceptions of the other Semitic
rehgions, they are far superior to them. And yet
the Hebrews were not superior in other ways to
all the other Semitic nations. The Babylonians,
at any rate, were undoubtedly their superiors in
education, in civilization, and in material pros-
perity. Neither did the Hebrews possess a taste
for religious thought that was peculiar. There is
no evidence that they possessed this in general to
any higher degree than the other Semitic nations ;
all were religious, in action and in thought. There
seems, then, to be no human cause for the result
that is clearly evident. What could be expected
from human nature at those times and under those
circumstances is shown by the religions of the
other Semitic nations. The marked superiority
of the Old Testament teachings in reference to
that which is most fundamental indicates clearly,
then, that here a new cause is in operation. That
cause, it seems evident, is the unique presence of
God, the illumination of God giving perception of
spiritual truth, that which is usually called, and
fitly, the special revelation of God.

This conclusion is confirmed, and not at all
contradicted, by the many teachings in which the

196 THE OLD TESTAMENT

Old Testament is much different from the teach-
ings of the other Semitic rehgions, but in which
the difference is somewhat less marked than in
these cases just cited. In all these the difference
is in favor of the Old Testament; the teachings
there are superior to the teachings of these other
religions.

From what has already been said, however, the
question naturally arises, Why is there in the
Old Testament such a combination of the higher
and the lower, of that which has come directly
from the revelation of God and that which has
come, at least directly, through men, through
inheritance from Semitic ancestors? This ques-
tion may be considered from various standpoints.
It is often considered from the standpoint of
God : in giving his will by revelation, why did he
mingle the spiritual knowledge of himself with
that which is lower, the formal ? This is a ques-
tion, of course, which it is difficult to answer
fully; no one is able to speak adequately for God
on such a question as this, and to state all the
reasons which may have entered in. But a study
of God's dealings with men elsewhere, as well as
among the Hebrews, and some knowledge of
human nature justify the inference that, at any

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS I97

rate, one prominent reason for such a course was
the educational principle that men must be taught
gradually, that the new truth must be brought
into relation with the old belief, that the new must
have points of contact with the old. If those to
whom the revelation came were to receive it in-
telligently, and there is no reason to think other-
wise, this general principle would apply, as in
other relations. For the more detailed working
out of this principle it is better to turn from what
God must have done, in harmony with his nature
and the nature of man, and see what he did, to
observe how in reality this principle works itself
out in the Old Testament, to see how the new
truth actually comes into relation with the old
view in the experience of men. Here we need to
notice several different things, in their applica-
tion to the matter before us.

We observe that the revelation of God's truth
to an individual writer or speaker of the Old Tes-
tament was not a full-orbed sphere of truth: a
single truth or a few great truths constitute the
individual message. There were manifold limi-
tations in the knowledge of truth by the individual.
It was distinctly a revelation of religious trutli,
not historical or scientific. And within the re-

198 THE OLD TESTAMENT

ligious realm the content of the individual con-
tribution was small, comprising at the most in
each case but a few important conceptions of the
character of God and man's relation to him. This
is easily seen in the case of the great prophets,
whose individual messages were limited in scope.
This may fairly be considered the universal rule,
the revelation of God to the individual writer or
speaker of the Old Testament consisted in a few
things unfolded to him. Such was the message,
and the work of putting this in form for popu-
lar presentation, and of adjusting it in its rela-
tion to other truth and to views commonly held
by the people was a task in which the human
powers came into prominent use; there was co-
operation of the divine and the human. This
work of adjustment was not only in relation to
the views of others, but to his own as well. This
meant that the consequences of the truth he pro-
claimed were only partially grasped by the in-
spired writer or speaker, and that often it re-
quired a long time to work out the full conse-
quences of certain truth proclaimed: in some
cases this was not perfectly done, or even ap-
proximately so, in Old Testament times. Yet
continually the progress of revelation in the Old

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 1 99

Testament resulted not only in the proclamation
of new phases of truth, but also in the further
adjustment of truth already proclaimed to the
views that had preceded it.

We have already noted that the distinctive
teaching of the Old Testament centers about God,
revealing the truth that he is one, infinite, spirit-
ual, ethical, and revealing that man's relation to
God is in harmony with this, that sin is ethical,
and man's relation to God is on an ethical basis,
not a ritual. The older, common-Semitic, idea
was that the gods were physical, that sin was
ritual, and that forgiveness was through the in-
strumentality of sacrifice or magic. Some de-
parture from these ideas had taken place before
the beginning of the distinctive Hebrew thought,
but it was not a fundamental departure. The
Hebrew conception began with a higher view of
God, that he is one, spiritual, and ethical. This
displaced entirely, so far as definite statement is
concerned, the view that there were many gods,
and that they were physical, material. Some of
the applications of this truth to the relation of
man to God were also quickly seen. There was
speedy condemnation of immoral acts in the serv-
ice of Yahweh, such as unchastity, and also of

200 THE OLD TESTAMENT

everything magical : these things were seen to be
utterly opposed to the exalted ideas of God which
had been revealed. So also, in general, everything
that is clearly of a superstitious nature is forbid-
den. But the attitude toward that which was
formal, the ritual, sacrifices, ritual sin, regula-
tions concerning ceremonial uncleanness, etc., was
quite different. These were retained through the
whole Old Testament period. These originally
were based upon an idea of God as physical, yet in
their development the original idea had been con-
siderably modified, so that that idea was less ob-
viously and necessarily inherent than in the prac-
tices forbidden. Evidently they were never felt,
in Old Testament times, to be clearly inconsistent
with the exalted conception of God that was held.
At the same time it is obvious that here is a cere-
monial conception of God which is lower than the
spiritual and ethical teaching found elsewhere.
These elements, however, are incorporated with
the higher idea of God, and never eliminated.
But practically their scope was greatly limited, so
that they had to do with the national relations,
with the religion as a State religion, while in the
individual life they had less importance. His-
torically, also, it is obvious that to the thought of

AMONG THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS 20I

the mass of the people this formal side of the re-
ligion was the one for which they had special
appreciation. And this side had its uses, as well
as its injurious effects, in giving to the mass of
the people who had no appreciation for anything
higher an expression for their religious aspira-
rations. It could hardly be expected that this side
could have been done away, in Old Testament
times, unless there had been a much fuller ap-
preciation by the people of the spiritual nature
of religion. Even in the progress of God's reve-
lation, it is only gradually that the higher view
triumphs over the lower, that the imperfect gives
way to the adequate expression of truth.

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

RELIGIOUS TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS

GENERAL

Cooke, G. A. A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscrip-
tions, Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Naba-
tsean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford, 1903.

Corpus Inscriptionum semiticarum, ab Academia In-
scriptionum et Litterarum Humaniorum conditum
atque digestum. Paris. Pars Prima. Inscriptiones
Phoenicias Continens. Tomus I (4 parts), 1881, 1883,
1885, 1887. Tomus II (2 parts), 1890, 1899. Pars
Secunda, Inscriptiones Aramaicas Continens. Tomus I
(3 parts), 1889, 1893, 1902. Pars Quarta, Inscriptiones
Himyariticas et Sabaeas Continens. Tomus I (3 parts),
1889, 1892, 1900. Cited as CIS.

Lidzbarski, M. Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi-
graphik, nebst ausgewahlten Inschriften. I and II.
Weimar, 1898.

ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN

Banks, E. J. Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen der
von George Reisner herausgegeben Sammlung, um-
schrieben, iibersetzt und erklart. Breslau, 1897.

Behrens, E. Assyrisch-Babylonische Briefe kult-
ischen Inhalts aus der Sargonidenzeit. Leipzig, 1906.

Craig, Jas. A. Assyrian and Babylonian Religious
Texts. I and II. Leipzig, 1895-1897.

Dhorme, Paul. Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro-
Babyloniens. Paris, 1907.

203

204 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gray, C. D. The Shamash Religious Texts. Chicago,
1901.

Harper, R. R, and others. Assyrian and Babylonian
Literature. New York, 1901. Cited as ABL.

Haupt, Paul. Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrift-
texte. Leipzig, 1881-1882.

Hrozny, Fr. Sumerisch-Babylonische Mythen von
dem Gotte Ninrag (Ninib). Berlin, 1903.

Hussey, Mary L Some Sumerian-Babylonian Hymns
of the Berlin Collection, transcribed and interpreted,
with collation of the original tablets, from the text
published by George Reisner. Chicago, 1907.

Jensen, P. Assyrisch-Babylonische Mythen und
Epen. Berlin, 1900. (Vol. VI, i, in Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek.) Cited as KB.

King, L. W. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, being
" The Prayers of the Lifting of the Hand." London,
1896.

Knudtzon, J. A. Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnen-
gott fiir Staat und konigliches Haus aus der Zeit Asar-
haddons und Assurbanipals. I and IL Leipzig, 1893.

Macmillan, K. D. Some Cuneiform Tablets bearing
on the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Leipzig,
1906.

Rawlinson, H. C. A Selection from the Miscella-
neous Inscriptions of Assyria. Second edition. Lon-
don, 1891. (The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia, IV.)

Reisner, George. Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen
nach Thontafeln Griechischer Zeit. Berlin, 1896.

Tallqvist, K. L. Die Assyrische Beschworungsserie
Maqlu. Leipzig, 1894.

Zimmern, Heinrich. Babylonische Busspsalmen, um-
schrieben, iibersetzt und erklart. Leipzig, 1885.

Zimmern, Heinrich. Babylonische Hymnen und
Gebete in Auswahl, Leipzig, 1905.

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

Zimmern, Heinrich. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Bab-
ylonischen Religion. Leipzig, 1901.

GENERAL WORKS ON SEMITIC RELIGION

Barton, G. A. A Sketch of Semitic Origins, social
and religious. New York, 1902.

Baudissin, W. W. F. Studien zur Semitischen Relig-
ionsgeschichte. I and II. Leipzig, 1876-1878.

Curtiss, S. I. Primitive Semitic Religion To-day.
Chicago, 1902.

Lagrange, M. J. £tudes sur les Religions Semitiques.
Deuxieme edition. Paris, 1905.

Saussaye, Ch. D. L. Lehrbuch der Religionsge-
schichte. I. Tubingen, 1905.

Smith, W. Robertson. The Religion of the Semites.
Second edition. London, 1894.

Winckler, Hugo. Religionsgeschichtlicher und ge-
schichtlicher Orient. Leipzig, 1906.

WORKS ON INDIVIDUAL RELIGIONS

ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN

Fossey, Ch. La Magie Assyrienne. Paris, 1903.

Jastrow, Morris, Jr. The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria. Boston, 1898.

Jastrow, Morris, Jr. Die Religion Babyloniens und
Assyriens. Vom Verfasser revidierte und wesentlich
erweiterte Uebersetzung. I. Giessen, 1905. II is ap-
pearing in parts.

Jeremias, A. Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstel-
lungen vom Leben nach dem Tode. Leipzig, 1897.

Jeremias, A. Holle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern.
Leipzig, 1899.

Jeremias, A. The Babylonian Conception of Heaven
and Hell. London, 1902.

206 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jeremias, A. Monotheistische Stromungen innerhalb
der Babylonischen Religion. Leipzig, 1904.

King, L. W. Babylonian Religion and Mythology.
London, 1903.

Morgenstern, J. The Doctrine of Sin in the Baby-
lonian Religion. Berlin, 1905.

Sayce, A. H. The Origin and Growth of Religion as
Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians.
Third edition. London, 1891.

Sayce, A. H. The Religions of Ancient Egypt and
Babylonia. Edinburgh, 1902.

Schrank, W. Babylonische Siihnriten besonders mit
Riicksicht auf Priester und Biisser. Leipzig, 1908.

Thompson, R. C. Semitic Magic. London, 1908.

Thompson, R. C. The Devils and Evil Spirits of
Babylonia. I and H. London, 1903-1904.

Weber, O. Die Literatur der Babylonier und Assyrer.
Ein Ueberblick. Leipzig, 1907.

HEBREW

Bennett, W. H. The Theology of the Old Testa-
ment. London, 1896.

Davidson, A. B. The Theology of the Old Testament.
New York, 1904.

Dillmann, A. Handbuch der Alttestamentlichen The-
ologie. Leipzig, 1895.

Duf¥, A. The Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews.
New York, 1902.

Kayser, A. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Zweite
Auflage. Strassburg, 1894.

Marti, Karl. Die Religion des Alten Testament unter
den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. Tubingen, 1906.

Marti, Karl. The Religion of the Old Testament.
London, 1907.

Oehler, G. F. Theologie des Alten Testaments.
Dritte Auflage. I and IL Stuttgart, 1891.

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

Oehler, G. F. Theology of the Old Testament. Sec-
ond edition. I and H. Edinburgh, 1884.

Piepenbring, Ch. Theologie de I'Ancien Testament.
Paris, 1886.

Piepenbring, Ch, Theology of the Old Testament.
New York, 1893.

Riehm, Ed. Alttestamentliche Theologie. Halle,
1889.

Schultz, H. Alttestamentliche Theologie. Die Of-
fenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vorchristlichen Entwickel-
ungsstufe. Fiinfte Auflage. Gottingen, 1896.

Schultz, H. Old Testament Theology. Translated
from the Fourth German Edition by J. A. Paterson.
I and II. Edinburgh, 1898.

Smend, R. Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Re-
ligionsgeschichte. Freiburg und Leipzig, 1893.

ARABIC

Weber, O. Arabien vor dem Islam. Leipzig, 1901.
Wellhausen, J. Reste Arabischen Heidentums gesam-
melt und erlautert. Zweite Auflage. Berlin, 1897.

COMPARATIVE WORKS

Baethgen, Fr. Beitrage zur Semitischen Religions-
geschichte. Der Gott Israels und die Gotter der Heiden.
Berlin, 1888.

Hommel, Fritz. Der Gestirndienst der alten Araber
und die altisraelitische Ueberlieferung. Miinchen, 1901.

Jeremias, A. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten
Orients. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1906.

Nielsen, D. Die altarabische Mondreligion und die
mosaische Ueberlieferung. Strassburg, 1904.

Rogers, Robert W. The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria, especially in its relations to Israel. New York,
1908.

208 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schrader, E. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testa-
ment. Dritte Auflage, neu bearbeitet von H. Zimmern
und H. Winckler. Berlin, 1903. Cited as KAT.

Sellin, E. Der Ertrag der Ausgrabungen im Orient
fiir die Erkenntnis der Entwicklung der Religion Is-
raels. Leipzig, 1905.

Sellin, E. Die alttestamentliche Religion im Rahmen
der andern altorientalischen. Leipzig, 1908.

Vigouroux, F. La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes
en Palestine, en Egypte, et en Assyrie. Quatrieme edi-
tion. I-IV. Paris, 1884-1885.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS
AND NAMES

Abraham, 67.

Abyssinia, 18.

Adad, 44.

Adadnirari III, 45, 64, 66.

Adam, 25.

Adapa, 25.

Aksum, 18.

Allah, 94,

Allatu, 63, 167.

Altar, 100, 106 seq., 113^, 116,
118, I2if, 149, 160.

Alu, 180.

Amenhotep IV, 46,

Animism, 3of, 35, 37-

An-Shar, 59.

Anthropomorphism, 37 seq., 51,
127, 186.

Anu, 42, 59.

Anunnaki, 177.

Aralu: the Babylonian under-
world, 63, 166 seq., 175 seq.,
181; food and drink in, 176
seq.

Ashipu, 21.

Ashur, the Assyrian city, 42, 65,

lOI.

Ashur, the Assyrian god, 24, 42f,

55, 64 seq., 87.
Ashurbanipal, 19, 22 seq., 28.
Astrology, 23.
Aten, 46.
Atonement, 96, 107, m. "6,

121, 128 seq., 161.
Atrahasis, 25.
Azazel, 134.
O

Babbar, 43.

Babylonian exile, 79, 133, 181, 189,

Baru, 21.

Bel, 42 seq., 59.

Bel-Marduk, 43.

Blood, of sacrifices, 102, 113,

117, i2if, 127, 129, 134, 136.
Bloodless offering, losf, 110,

ii8f.
Book of the Covenant, 149.
Borrowing, of religious ideas,

29 seq., 188 seq.
Borsippa, 102.
Burial, 166, i75f. 178.
Burnt offering, 96, loi, 106 seq.,

130, 135 seq.

Carthage, 25f, 104.

Cassites, 15.

Cave, as burial-place, 166.

Centralization, of worship, 52.
I oof.

Ceremonial cleanness and un-
cleanness, 71 seq., 92, 95 seq.,
I3if, 200.

Chaldeans, 15.

Chronology, 28f.

City gods. 36, 42. 62.

City-State, 17 ■

Clan god (see tribal gods).

Clan sacrifice (see tribal sacri-
fices).

Common-Semitic ideas: 48, 61,
75, 89, 95, 98 seq.. 185 seq.,
199; origin of, 188 st-q.
209

2IO INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

Confession, of sin, 21, 88.

Conquest, of Canaan by He-
brews, 190 seq.

Covenant, with Yahweh, i39f,
156, is8f.

Cradle, of the Semites, 13.

Creation: in Babylonian ac-
counts, 23, 87; in the Old
Testament, 87.

Creator: Babylonian gods as, 59,
87; Yahweh as, 58, 60, 87.

Cyprus, 25.

Cyrus, 15.

Daily sacrifice, 102, 138.

Damascus, 17.

Darkness, in underworld, 167,
i69f, 179.

Death, 37, 60, 82, 89, i34, I39f,
142, 155, 174, i76f, 179.

Deification of king, 178.

Deluge: in Babylonian account,
24f; in Old Testament ac-
count, 25.

Demons: 20, 91 seq., 142 seq.,
150, 171, 180; present in sick-
ness, 92.

Denunciation, of sacrifice, 152 seq.

Distinctive Old Testament teach-
ings: 98, 193 seq., 199; source
of, 194 seq.

Dust, in underworld, 167.

E, Elohistic Code, 149.

Ea, 42, 44f, 59.

Education, 104.

Elamites, 15.

Enuma elish, 23, 87.

Epics, of the Babylonians, 20, 24!

Eridu, 24, 87.

Esarhaddon, 22.

Eshmunazar, 73, 168.

Esoteric religious doctrine, 47.

Etana, 25.

Eternity, divine, 57 seq., 76, 188.

Ethical: character of religion,
50, 83f, 89f, 94f, 97f; com-
pleteness of deity, 49, 70, 74f,
78, 187, 194; divine character,
48 seq., 75, 83f, 97f, 187, I99f.

Ethiopic language, 18.

Expiation, of sin (see atone-
ment).

Expulsion, from tribe, 139.

Ezekiel, book of, 152.

Faithfulness, divine, 75 seq., 80,

188.
Fall, of man, 88.
Fee, of priests, 123.
Firstfruits, 118.
Forgiveness, divine, 83f, 149,

159, 199.
Future life: 82, 99, 165 seq,, 186,

190; rewards and punishments

in, 175 seq., 186.

Gift, to deity, 107, iii seq., 118,

124, 128, 146, 158.
Gilgamesh, 24, 175, 177.
Grace, divine, 83f.
Gradations, divine, 42 seq., 55,
Grave, 166, 168.
Guilt offering, iisf, ii8f, I2if,

124, 130, 135 seq.

Hadad, 169.

Hadramaut, 17.

Hammurabi, 23, 25, 41, 49, 81.

Haupt, 109.

Heaven, 52, 56.

Heretic king, 46.

High places, loi.

Holiness, 70 seq., 94.

Holocaust, 108.

Home, of the Semites, 13.

Human sacrifice, 107, 113, 123,

135, 192.
Hymns, of the Babylonians, 2of,

143.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 211

Ideographic writing, 31.

Idolatry, 106.

Images, divine, 54, 100.

Immoral gods, 75, 187.

Incantation, 64, ^^, 8j, 103, 126,
142 seq., 179. 187.

Incense offering, 117^.

Individual: in relation to d^ity,
lit 79ft 91; i"^ relation to sac-
rifice, loif, 112, i37f, 151-

Infinitude, divine, 57, i99-

Ira, 25.

Irkalla, 167.

Isaac, 134.

Ishtar, 75, 100, 167.

Jastrow, 31, 41, 167.
Jealousy, divine, 67.
Jerusalem, 100.
Jinns, 41, 84.
Job, 152.

Jonah, book of, 83.
Judgment, after death, 180.
Justice, divine, 38, 63, 78 seq.

Kalkhi, 64f.
Kataban, 17.
Ki-Shar, 59.
Knowledge, divine, 68f.
Kutha, 102.

Labartu, 20.

Lagash, 100.

Lagrange, 48.

Langdon, 109.

Levitical legislation, 98, 153-

Leviticus, book of, i47-

Libation, no, 113, ii7, 172.

Lifting of the hand, prayers of,
20.

Limitation, of the efficacy of sac-
rifice, 141, 147. 149, 153 seq.,
i85f.

Liver, in Babylonian divination,

22.

Local gods, 36, 42, 48, 62f, 64,

67f, 80, 100.
Love, divine, 48f, Saf, 188.

Magic, ^^, 80, 82, 84, 126, 133.
i42f, 145 seq., i78f, 194. i99f-

Majesty, divine, 57-

Maqlu, 20.

Marduk: of Babylon, 23f, 42 seq.,
65, 87, 165; of Eridu, 24, 87.

Marseilles tablet, 25, 123.

Maspero, 45.

Mat, 180.

Mercy, divine, 83f, I49f. i55,
159.

Mesha, 26.

Messianic teaching, i65f, 187.

Migration: Arabic, 14; Aramaic,
i4f; Babylonian, \i,i\ Canaan-
ite, 14; Southern Arabic, 15.

Minseans, i7f. 102.

Moabite Stone, 26.

Monarchical tendency, among
deities, 43, 48, 55-

Monolatry, 40.

Monotheism: 40 seq., 75, I94'.
ancient Oriental, 47; approxi-
mations to, 41 seq., 187.

jSIorgenstern, 90.

Muhammad, 2T, 93f.

:Muhammadanism, 50.

Myths, of the Babylonians, 20,
24f, 40, 62.

Nabu, 44f, 63 seq.

Nabuapaliddin, 124.

Name, of Yahweh, 40.

Nannar, 43.

National gods, 48, 55. 62, 68,

80.
National sacrifices, loif, 137 seq.,

151, 200.
Nations, in relation to Yahweh,

60, 79f. 83.
Nature gods, 38, 50 seq., 59. 75-

212 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

Nature of man, S^i.
Nazirite, 95 f.
Nehemiah, 147.
Nergal, 44, 63, 167.
Nielsen, 48f, 75.
Nineveh, 16, 65, 102.
Ninib, 44.

Omens, Babylonian, 20 seq., 103.
Omnipotence, divine, 57, 60

seq., 188.
Omnipresence, divine, 57, Cyi,

188.
Omniscience, divine, 57, 68f, i88.
Oracles, Babylonian, 22.
Osiris, 82, 169, i79f.

P, Priest Code, 123, 140, i47f.
Panammu, 169, 178,
Pantheism, 39, 45 seq., 55, 180.
Peace offering, loi, 106 seq.,

137.
Personality, divine, 35, 38 seq.,

48, 51, 53, 186.
Philosophical speculation, 39, 46.
Power, divine, 53, 55, 60 seq.,

72.
Prayers: Babylonian, 2of, 84, 88,

143, 146; Egyptian, 179.
Priestess, 22.
Priestly legislation (see Leviti-

cal legislation).
Priests, 22, 96, 102 seq., io8f,

III, 116, 118 seq., 121 seq.,

130, 171.
Prostitution, 71, 75, 199.
Psalms: Babylonian, 2of, 143;

Babylonian penitential, 21, 69,

88.
Punishment, divine, 76f, 79f, 89,

9if, 96, i4of, 144, I49f, 155,

173 seq.

Ra, 169, i78f.

Rebellion, against God, 140.

Redemption, 99.

Religious literature: Arabic, 27;

Aramaic, 26f; Assyrian, i9f;

Babylonian, 19 seq.; Hebrew,

26; Moabite, 26; Phoenician,

25; Southern Arabic, 27;

Syriac, 27.
Reparation, with guilt offering,

136.
Repentance, 155 seq.
Resurrection, 181 f, 186.
Revelation: 195 seq.,; progress

of, i98f, 201.
Righteousness, divine, 49, 72, 74,

78, 188.

Sabaeans, i7f.

Sacrifice: 22, 40, 53, 77, 88f, 93,

99 seq., 143, 146 seq., 172, 185,
187, 189 seq., I99f; as opus
operatum, 148; different kinds
of, 106 seq.; materials of, 104
seq.; meaning of, 106, 125
seq.; place of, loof; time of,

100 seq.

Sacrificial meal, 106, iii, 114,

123, 137.
Sacrificial regulations, 119 seq.
Salvation, 99 seq., 185, 187,

194.
Samuel, 172.
Sayce, 3of, 66, 180.
Schrank, 131.

Shalmaneser II, 64, 66, 81.
Shamash, 22, 29, 38, 43f, 63, 66,

78, 8 if.
Sheol, 67, 169 seq., i8of.
Showbread, 119.
Shukamuna, 44.
Shurpu, 20, 90.
Sidon, 168.
Sin, 21, 69, 71, 79, 83, 87 seq.,

99, 107, 113, 128, 130, 132,

135 seq., 144, 146, 154 seq.,

173, 186, 189, I99f.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 2I3

Sin offering, 96, iisf, 118 seq.,
124, 130, 134 seq., 137, 140,

158.

Sin, the Babylonian god, 43f.

Sins: done unwittingly, 140, 147
seq.; of deliberate purpose, 140,
147 seq.

Sippar, 102.

Smith, 93, III, 115.

Solomon, 52.

Spheres, of divine activity, 63f.

Spirituality, divine, 35, 51 seq.,
127, 187, 194, i99f.

Substitutionary idea, in sacri-
fice, 114, 133 seq.

Sukh, 44.

Sumerians, 15, 3of.

Sumero-Akkadian literature, 31.

Superstition, 45.

Syncretism, religious, 43, 48.

Tabnith, 168.

Temple: 21, 100, 143; in
Testament, 52, 100, 159.
Thank offering, 152.
Theophanies, of Yahweh, 52
Tiamat, 24.
Tiglathpileser III, 17, 66.

Old

Totemism, 37, 112, 114.
Transcendence, divine, 39, ssf.
Triad, divine, 59.
Tribal gods, 91, 94, 111, 137, 140.
Tribal sacrifices, iii seq., 137
seq.

Unity, divine, 35, 40 seq., 187,

194. 199.
Universality, of sin, 88.
Ur, 67.
Ushebtis, 180.
Utnapishtim, 24f.
Utukki limnuti, 20.

Votive inscriptions, 27.

Wellhausen, 94.

Winckler, 14, 193.

Witches, 92f, 133.

Worship: astral, 36, 48, 50; of
ancestors, 37; of natural phe-
nomena, 36.

Zamama, 44.
Zammaru, 21.
Zenjirli, 26.
Zu, 25.

INDEX OF OLD TESTAMENT
REFERENCES

PAGE

Genesis 8 : 20 127

Genesis 28: 15 67

Exodus 15: 18 58

Exodus 21 : 14 149

Exodus 32 i49£

Leviticus 2 : 11 106

Leviticus 3 : 17 106

Leviticus 12 : 6, 8 96

Leviticus 14: 19 96

Leviticus 15: 15 96

Leviticus 16: 21, 26, 28,.. 134

Leviticus 17: 11 121, 129

Numbers 6 : 9-1 1 95

Numbers 6: 11, 14 96

Numbers 15 149

Numbers 15 : 22-31 147

Numbers 15:27-31 140

Numbers 15: 30 i4of, 150

Numbers 15:32-36 150

Numbers 19: 13, 20 96

Numbers 25 150

Deuteronomy 18 145

Deuteronomy 18: 12, 14... 145

I Samuel 2:6 171

I Samuel 21 : 5 -jz

1 Samuel 28:8-19 172

2 Samuel 12:23 170

I Kings 8 : 2^ 52

Job I : 5 152

Job 7 : 9f 170

Job 10: 2lf 169

Job 16 : 22 170

Job 19 : 25-27 181

Job 42 : 8 15a

PAGE

Psalm 6 : 5 171

Psalm 10: 16 58

Psalm 16 181

Psalm 20 : 3 1 52

Psalm 24: 3-6 159

Psalm 26 : 6 160

Psalm 40:6-8 158

Psalm 49 181

Psalm 50: 5, 8-14, 16-21... 158

Psalm 50: i2f 127

Psalm 51 : 16, 17 157

Psalm 51 : 19 151

Psalm 54: 6 151

Psalm 56: 12 151

Psalm 65 : 3 159

Psalm 66 : 13, 15 151

Psalm Ti 181

Psalm 78 : 38 159

Psalm 79 : 9 159

Psalm 85 : 2 159

Psalm 96:8 151

Psalm 103: 17 58

Psalm 107 : 22 151

Psalm 115: 17 171

Psalm 116: 17 151

Psalm 118 : 27 151

Psalm 139: 5-10 67

Psalm 139 : 8 171

Proverbs 7 : 14 151

Proverbs 11 : 7 181

Proverbs 14 : 32 181

Proverbs 15 : 8 154

Proverbs 17: i 151

Proverbs 21 : 3 157

214

INDEX OF OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES 215

PAGE

Proverbs 21 : 27 154

Ecclesiastes 9:2 152

Ecclesiastes 9: sf, 10 170

Isaiah i : 11-17 156

Isaiah i : 16 96

Isaiah i : 18-20 157

Isaiah 2 : 19, 21 79

Isaiah 3 : I3 79

Isaiah 6 : 5 96

Isaiah 10 : 23 79

Isaiah 14 : 26 79

Isaiah 19: 21 151, 153

Isaiah 26: 19 182

Isaiah 28 : 22 79

Isaiah 33: 14-16 159

Isaiah 38: 17 159

Isaiah 40 60

Isaiah 41 : 4 58

Isaiah 43 : 2 67

Isaiah 43: 10 58

Isaiah 43: 13 60

Isaiah 43 : 23f 151

Isaiah 44 : 6 58

Isaiah 44 : 22 159

Isaiah 45 : 9 60

Isaiah 48 : 12 58

Isaiah 51:6 58

Isaiah 56: 7 151

Isaiah 66 : 3f 154

Jeremiah 6 : 20 154

Jeremiah T : 22 191

Jeremiah 17 : 26 151. I53

Jeremiah 18 61

Jeremiah 23:9 73

PAGB

Jeremiah 23 : 23! 67

Jeremiah 31 : 29, 30 80

Jeremiah 33:8 96

Jeremiah 33 : 11 151, 153

Jeremiah 33: 18 151, 153

Jeremiah 50 72

Jeremiah 51 t2

Lamentations 4 : i4f 96

Ezekiel 18 80

Ezekiel 20 : 40 151

Ezekiel 37 181

Daniel 9 : 27 151

Daniel 12 : 2 182

Hosea 3 : 4 151, 153

Hosea 4 : i3£, 19 154

Hosea 6 : 6 156

Hosea 8: 13 154

Hosea 9 : 4 151, 153

Joel I : 9, 13 151

Joel 2 : 14 151

Amos 3 : 2 79

Amos 4: 4f 154

Amos 5: i4f 156

Amos 5: 16-20 155

Amos 5:22-24 155

Amos 5 : 24 156

Amos s : 25 15S. 191

Amos 9 : 2-4 67

Amos 9 : 7 6of

Micah 3 157

Micah 6 : 6-8 i57

Micah 7: 19 159

Malachi i : 7-10 151

Malachi 3: 3f 151

DATE DUE

■.Ji|^&a^S!Hfe*fe,

****.

GAYLORD

PRINTED IN U.S.A.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Old Testament among the Semitic religions"

See other formats